Does the Russian Tor-M1 render most of the USAF worthless?

by stellar
Talk about vapid lies.... The lend lease effort enabled them to fight back far more effectively than they otherwise could or would have but do not for a moment think you will get away with believing the USSR would have just 'folded' for lack of these materials.

hmm, not worth responding to all of your baiting, I will not fall into that trap as rogue1 has made excellent points on how you waste peoples time by flooding misinformation, I will leave it up to educated people to grade your comments.

russia was on the verge of defeat, they would have been defeated if it was not for the US lend lease act, general zhukov is on the record stating that the US lend lease saved russia. he also stated russai would not have the means to fight back if it wasn't for the US. the lend lease gave them the materials they needed to fight back which they lacked, the raw materials to produce etc and the automobiles and trains to transport supplies to the front line, here once again I will start out with the most basic information available..

en.wikipedia.org...

'The list below is the amount of war material shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.'

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.

The list includes a high percentage of the high grade steel, communications
cable, canned foods of all types, medical supplies, and virtually every modern machine tool used by Soviet industry. Not to mention the "know-how required to use and maintain this equipment.

i forgot which thread you said this in, but i remember it was along the lines of ' the americans and british struggled with the germans while the soviets decimated the german army in the east blah blah blah garbage '.

more accurate information

The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, 1941-1945, by BORIS V. SOKOLOV. have a good read and look up the name and quotes it's available anywhere.

quoting zhukov,

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, 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*** . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americansactually came to our assistance 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 had all this ourselves in abundance.'

'"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' we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries."


'Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and 1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs in 1963.

And now you arehoping for another war to break out? Bloodthirsty ignorant people like you are very much part of the reason i am on these types of forums.

oh israel will hit iran first and i'm hoping the US gives them air and naval support.

you would like to see another muslim bomb wouldnt you?

[edit on 13-2-2007 by ape]

i think that would not happen cause iran is to strong, its not iraq with outdated russian systems. Iran itsfelf produces weapons, even missiles. They spend so much into military, its unbelievable. I also think that the US is overstretched with their troops, a war against iran would be a nightmare. Imagine the post war time in Tehran i would say 100 times as dangerous then actually in Bagdad. They will loose a great amount of soldiers.

russia was on the verge of defeat, they would have been defeated if it was not for the US lend lease act,

ape, there were several other generals other than zhukov

read this:

But what about lend-lease? Let us hear what one of the most serious publications of the American bourgeoisie has to say on this subject. Leland Stowe in an article in the October issue of the quarterly Foreign Affairs writes:
“The American lend-lease and British supplies did not reach Soviet Russia in sufficient proportions to become a major factor in the crucial defensive fighting along the Don, in the northern Caucasus and at Stalingrad during the summer and early autumn of 1942. This flow became really important only about the time that the Russians had already demonstrated their bulldog grip on Stalingrad.”

Mr. Stowe is compelled to admit that the Red Army’s military record represents an “exclusively Soviet achievement.” In public the capitalist press of course loudly denies this. But among themselves these gentlemen prefer the truth.
www.marxists.org...

stellar posted:

Talk about vapid lies.... The lend lease effort enabled them to fight back far more effectively than they otherwise could or would have but do not for a moment think you will get away with believing the USSR would have just 'folded' for lack of these materials.
--------------
The American and allied lend lease was massively significant but arrived after the USSR had already ensured that they could keep on fighting effectively if not efficiently. The resources sent tot he USSR before the war even broke out certainly played a far larger role in enabling the USSR to survive the initial assault and if you want to discuss that just say so .

i got to agree on this stellar , the lend lease was insufficeint and arrived after soviets were repealing germans and had shown fierece resistance in stalingrad ,
-----------------------
“The American lend-lease and British supplies did not reach Soviet Russia in sufficient proportions to become a major factor in the crucial defensive fighting along the Don, in the northern Caucasus and at Stalingrad during the summer and early autumn of 1942. This flow became really important only about the time that the Russians had already demonstrated their bulldog grip on Stalingrad.”

Mr. Stowe is compelled to admit that the Red Army’s military record represents an “exclusively Soviet achievement.” In public the capitalist press of course loudly denies this. But among themselves these gentlemen prefer the truth.
www.marxists.org...
------------------------
acc. to Hitler's Nemesis" by Walter S. Dunn Jr, . OVERWHELMING amount of supply,
reached Soviets only after battle of Stalingrad. Even WITHOUT ANY LEND
LEASE Soviet industry out produced Germans by HUGE margin. Book stated that Soviets could win the Germans WITHOUT any help from outside, and second front.
David Glantz ("When Titans Clashed,") seems to feel that lend-lease was not the linchpin to eventual Soviet success. It wasn't Lend-Lease that undertook the massive (and, frequently, nasty) effort to move entire plants east to keep wartime production going. Nor did it equip the Siberian divisions that turned the tide at the defense of Moscow.
----
On January 1, 1945, about a thousand German bombers delivered strikes at 27 Allied airfields, destroying 260 aircraft. Simultaneously, 11 Nazi divisions launched a surprise attack at the 7th US army that was holding Alsace. The Germans crossed the Rhine and threatened the Allied forces with encirclement northeast of Strasbourg.

The attack was completely unexpected. We can still lose the war, General George Patton, commander of the 3rd Army, wrote in his diary on January 4, 1945.

The crisis on the Western Front called for radical measures. On January 6, Churchill wrote to Stalin, informing him about the heavy fighting in the west and asking for the Red Army to launch a major offensive.

The Soviet Union decided to act immediately. “The Supreme Command Headquarters decided… to launch a broad offensive against the Germans along the Central Front no later than in the second half of January,” said the January 7 reply to Churchill’s telegram.

The promise was fulfilled ahead of time. A powerful Soviet offensive, initially set for January 20, was launched on January 12. On that day, the entire central part of the vast Eastern Front was in motion: the Vistula-Oder Operation began. The Red Army delivered an incredible blow along the 500-1,000 km front, employing a record strategic group of forces. The 1st Belarussian and the 1st Ukrainian fronts alone, which were fighting in the centre, had 2.2 million troops, 33,500 guns and mortars, 7,000 tanks and self-propelled guns, and 5,000 aircraft






www.union.rian.ru...

[edit on 14-2-2007 by vK_man]

who was in command of soviet armed forces during the war and who was a national hero? second only to stalin in the minds of russians? zhukov. I will take his accounts over communist propaganda anyday.

you sunk to a new low vk_man, my stats sheets dont lie. you cand find this anywhere. twisting history like the soviets, you .ru people are crazy.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by ape]

Originally posted by ape
who was in command of soviet armed forces during the war and who was a national hero? second only to stalin in the minds of russians? zhukov. I will take his accounts over communist propaganda anyday.

you sunk to a new low vk_man, my stats sheets dont lie. you cand find this anywhere. twisting history like the soviets, you .ru people are crazy.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by ape]

anyways , you found it from google i know it , ()
-------------------
anyways read this:

the germans lost the war in september 1941, when hitler had turned his panzers to kiev to encircle the 600 000 soviet soldiers. thus he failed to reach moscow which, if taken would have been a far heavier blow to the USSR than loosing 600 000 men which were replaced by the early 1942.
the battle for moscow in december 1941 had spelled the doom for the german army. these siberian reinforcements were solely russian-made. thus the soviets had already won the war in 1941 potentially

in may 1942 the russians were already outproducing the germans, and would outproduce them untill the russians had reached berlin. by 1944 half of the USSR trucks were US-built, which isnt such a high or decisive factor. th german short-lived success of Fall Blau turned into a disaster, after Stalingrad.

yeah the allied bombing did tie down the 2 million germans(most were kids, old men, or wounded soldiers, the rest, the best german soldiers were on the eastern front, in normandy 1/6 wehrmacht soldiers were "ostruppen"), but that was when? at the end of 1943 when the strategic bombing campaign was picking up the pace did the germans place 50 000 (throughout the whole war of course) AA batteries and hundred of thousands of germans to man them in addition to the increased production output. by the end of 1943 may i remind u the germans had clearly lost the initiative in the east, so there goes the strategic bombing factor. even if the germans werent hampered by the strategic bombing they were still being outproduced by the USSR. remeber what JFK said "economy decides wars"

yeah the US trucks were the logistical support for the Red Army, or even half of the logistical support. the true starts of the russian offensives were the russian tanks.

---
The question is surprising because the USSR actually did that already. You see, the most decisive battles (German defeat and retreat near Moscow, defeat at Stalingrad), the most important developments (removal of over 1,500 Soviet factories east in 1941; German failure to destroy Soviet army and eliminate encirclements) were all done before any Lend-Lease help worthy of its name arrived. People don't realize that most of Lend Lease didn't make it to USSR but ended up in Britain and on the bottom of the Atlantic. Most of the Soviet military production, all but 5%, was not only home made, but included the most important weapons systems that assured Soviet victory over the Nazis: T-34/KV-1/IS-2 tanks were Soviet made an produced in huge numbers; more than any power during the war; the different variations of Mig (model 1-3, etc) was the most numerous fighter produced during the war by any power; the superb ground attack IL-2 Sturmovik was the most numerous plane produced during the war; in 1941-42 the Soviets produced over 200,000 major artillery pieces, more than any other power during the war. US aid did help but was it decisive? In quantities, qualities, and most importantly in timing it was not at all decisive. After Soviet victories at Moscow it was clear Germany was not going to win the war fast (and Hitler's generals told him 3-5 months!), after Stalingrad it was becoming obvious Germany was going to lose. After Kursk, which was won with Soviet tanks, troops, and artillery, it was clear that Germany is going to be beating a full retreat. Finally, around 80% of all German casualties were on the Eastern Front and even many Germans the ones captured by the Western Allies were in fact running towards the allies so that they could surrender a.s.a.p. before the fighting Soviets would arrive.

Originally posted by ape
who was in command of soviet armed forces during the war and who was a national hero? second only to stalin in the minds of russians? zhukov. I will take his accounts over communist propaganda anyday.

you sunk to a new low vk_man, my stats sheets dont lie. you cand find this anywhere. twisting history like the soviets, you .ru people are crazy.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by ape]

you sunk to a new low vk_man, my stats sheets dont lie. you cand find this anywhere. twisting history like the soviets,

nonsense ..... and stop with western propaganda by twisting zhukov's words, he said this russia had started its offensive in Europe ... if you analyse his statements ,its the logistical support he is talking about ,,,

yeah , i searche for it , and found a discussion on histroy channel that proved that soviiets would have won without the lendlease of USA, though it helped reduce casulatties
boards.historychannel.com...

who was in command of soviet armed forces during the war and who was a national hero? second only to stalin in the minds of russians? zhukov

boris shaposhnikov was another major commander boy ,
only by early 1944 , he was the secondf to stalin and to be truthful , the lend lease , DID NOT HELP IN BATTLE OF STALINGRAD , THOUGH IT HELPED HEAVILY IN LOGISTICAL and operations SUPPORT TO THE SOVIETS in the capture of berlin,poland,belorussia (it helped decisively in 1943-1944) ...

Foreign Affairs writes:
“The American lend-lease and British supplies did not reach Soviet Russia in sufficient proportions to become a major factor in the crucial defensive fighting along the Don, in the northern Caucasus and at Stalingrad during the summer and early autumn of 1942. This flow became really important only about the time that the Russians had already demonstrated their bulldog grip on Stalingrad

once again zhkuov is on record for saying this, you can twist it up all you want zhukov was a soviet national hero, look up the statistics of the lend lease it cannot be denied, the soviets would have fell. look up the author and what he said. you're misinformed stop spreading communist propaganda i'm talking about the entire war here, they didnt have trucks or locomotives to carry troops or supplies to the front lines. it's this type of equipment that won the war.

HAHAH posting history channel forums, you're pathetic. i'm posting actual fact here not opinion, all of my information is documented, boy.



[edit on 14-2-2007 by ape]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Stellar you do know that the F-117 will be fully retired by the end of the year right?

Who doesn't know? Just another case of disarmament for absolutely no good reason at all. The B-52's will be kept flying ( i know they are as good as rebuilt every decade but that's not the point) but they know want to 'retire' the F-117 which certainly still has a role to play? The B-52 were obsolete , against Soviet/Russia air defenses, before the first F-117 even if this is not seen for what it is i wonder what will!

Try something more recent, like, say a B-2, F-22 or even the TacTom.

By the time the F-22 are deployed in numbers sufficient to play a strategic role in world affairs too many countries are doing to have the type of DEW's that China recently demonstrated against a low orbiting satellite. DEW's need far less in terms of tracking information ( speed of light engagement) and against such threats a massively expensive platform like the F-22 is little or no use. That is however true for most aircraft in service today and if you can't make them ever cheaper&smaller your not dealing with reality in my opinion.

Stellar

Originally posted by vK_man
the radiolocators of those ww2 days were not capable of tracking low flying objects i.e. lower than 500 metres , the fiirst soviet radar capable of tracking low flying objects was in irkutsk and was capable of tracking even low flying geese..

Last time i checked British fleet escort ships managed to find submarine periscopes by means of radar so please don't tell me aircraft could not be tracked below 500 meters.

sergei was a high level officer in the Siet , a hybrid of KGB and soviet academy of Sciences under Displan

So he was unfamiliar with the standard Soviet strategic text book that made it clear the USSR were planning to fight and win a full scale nuclear war?

hah time out, there is no soviet strategy now .. only banana russian republic ....

The plan stayed the same even if the weaponry changed and become far more deadly. Russia is still being run by the same old KGB/FSB 'or 'communist' types of leaders so nothing has really changed even if they managed to convince you that it has.

what spectrum .... russsian defectors .... they are traitors and i do not accept their analysis ...

I don't really care if you accept it or not as you have done nothing to actually address or disprove their claims.

ly analysis you have partially proven is DIA analysis..

Then you need to start reading as i have done rather more than that in the last year.

nonnsense .... provide me a scientific report that proves usa nuked korea ...

Says the person who relies on mister Krutov for his scientific evaluation of the balance of strategic arms. If you want to talk science lets but don't insult me by pretending that you could tell a scientific report from the rest. Go investigate the train wreck as satellite imagery makes it quite clear that it was no regular train wreck.

nonsense again...is possible to for the public to verify military secrets

You have presented NO evidence to support Krutov's contention that the US have stockpiled a hundred THOUSAND cruise missiles.

the prediction about NATO encircling russia in prepartions to destroy it is coming true and as well as rising Stalinism

That is much like predicting that human beings will in the near future still be required to breath for survival. I could very well claim that there is rising Stalinism in the US as well as many people there seem to like dictatorial rule and a aggressive foreign policy...

definitely u suffer form amnesia ... do u only read ATS or BTS ....

Compared to what i have read in the past the time spent on this forum is not much if even significant.

on Yeltsin and his effects :

The first huge blow to democracy

What democracy?

came when Yeltsin destroyed the opposition parliament with tanks – with full support from newly-elected President Clinton.

Where is the evidence that the west had anything to do with this? Why were the coup leaders almost (Or all depending on who you believe) all men appointed by Gorbachev? Why where no telephone lines cut or Moscow ( or at least something of strategic value) secured? Why was Gorbachev not killed and why on Earth was he not in the country so that he could be? Why was only one of the eight coup leaders killed ( actually it was supposedly a accident) and the rest released after such short stints in prisons? Why did Anatoly Golitsyn predict so much of this?
Why did Eduard Shevardnadze, Gorbachev's former foreign minister, suggest that he was behind the entire thing

The next blow to democracy came from the creation of an oligarchy and the mass impoverishment of Russia,

What demoracy and wasn't Russian impoverished before the former state enterprises were handed to select KGB and communist leaders?

all due to economic policies that came straight out of the US Treasury Department.

Based on what?

The last big blow came in 1996, when the once-free Russian media was coapted by the pro-government oligarchy.

What free media?

The media in turn was used to support Yeltsin's presidential run that year – which he lost, but which he stole with massive manipulation, with the help and support and cover of the Clinton Administration.

Why did he need Clinton's help to steal elections?

By the time of the economic collapse in 1998, democracy had become known as "sh-t-ocracy," a dirty word and a cruel joke.

Still not sure what exactly happened there but i doubt ( from knowing where the financial troubles started in the world) that it was so specifically aimed at Russia.

The Clinton Administration sacrificed every decent value here, starting with the concept of democracy,

What democracy in Russia?

in order to both enrich their backers on Wall Street

How many of the beneficiaries of the sell off of former state industries were wall street people? Where is the evidence?

and to make sure that the Communists didn't return to power, whether the Russians wanted them or not.

www.russian-victories.ru...

They never left power as is abundantly clear even to this very day. Please refer to the articles i posted earlier as they really make it clear who is in charge of Russia today.

yep , they do

this was a western one , russian ones indicate b/w 53 -77%

And as i have in the past indicated i just find this almost impossible to believe even if i can't readily think of a way to disprove such a contention. Whatever the case may be these people don't know what their asking for and while they probably deserve some due punishment for their ignorance i wont wish Stalin on anyone.

well u seem to have forgot stalinism and NATO encirclement of Russia ..

Both fresh in my memory but i am not sure what either seems to prove in your mind.

as if he agrress with you

I'm not the one pretending that his worth believing when it comes to his pronouncements about Russian strategic power. About specifics i will use him as a source but for generalities he seems to be hiding at least as much as his telling.

many things are verified:
go to:
www.communist.ru
www.xakep.ru ... or go on russian part of internet ...

No thanks. If i can't find it in English ( no one saw the point of translating it or at least summing it up) i'm not sure what use it would be towards defending my views of the world.

as if u are good.... , what established reality shows russia as weak ,

Non of them.

the conspiracy reality or 'hidden' reality shows something different ..

The hidden reality is the one showing that it's the US that really lost the cold war and is now paying the economic price. Russian have always suffered and the 90's were not something radically 'new' or even unexpected.

stick to DIA sources .... these are only things that prove your point on USSR

I use far more than just the DIA as sources and i most certainly do not rely on western sources alone. Anatoly Golitsyn for one and i am not even sure i need very many more even thought i have them in such abundance.

Originally posted by vK_man
when was USSR iran's friend.... they were enemies as iran was helping afghan fighters

They were sworn enemies and you really need to read at least some history before you continue...

cannot agree as usa wanted iraq's large reserves for itself ..#

The US has plenty of oil in just plain old Texas and it really does not need anyone's oil for their own consumption. The world is swimming in oil and the steps the US have had to take to reign in the world supply borders on obsessive. You should ask who benefits but you probably don't want to consider that so maybe you should investigate who really set fire to the Kuwaiti oil fields or which country loves disrupting oil rich nations?

durin the 1970 indo-pak war, when americans sent a aircraft carier to bay of bengal , the russians sent a strke task force to threaten the carrier group and prevented usa from entering the war and terrorizing India

And that proves they were fighting in defense of freedom and liberty?

Stellar

[edit on 14-2-2007 by StellarX]

Double post and since i hate making such mistakes i am just going to post what i have typed up so far in reponse to ape's last post.

Originally posted by ape
hmm, not worth responding to all of your baiting,

Then don't respond to my 'baiting' ( i have been called worse for attempting to defend reality) and stop wasting my time.

I will not fall into that trap as rogue1 has made excellent points on how you waste peoples time by flooding misinformation,

I can't waste your time as i can't force you to endlessly repeat yourself while never addressing claims made against your arguments.

I will leave it up to educated people to grade your comments.

Thank you!

russia was on the verge of defeat,

I would say it was pretty much defeated by August 1941 and if Hitler got army group center moving again ( it took a nearly two month 'vacation' ; as much as such is possible in war) by mid September or early October Moscow would have fallen probably leading to the collapse of Russian resistance west of Moscow probably before winter set in. I think they were capable of winning that war in 1941 and there was not much the Russians could have done considering their strategic dispositions and general organization and command issues; it was imo their to lose and they managed.

they would have been defeated if it was not for the US lend lease act, general zhukov is on the record stating that the US lend lease saved russia.

I think they would have been defeated before lend lease could or did seriously affect the war but and that's despite the massive resource investment from the west that built up the USSR in the first place. I must commend you on finding that quote by Zhukov as i really had no idea that he ever went on record saying something as controversial; no damn wonder Stalin was so worried and confined him to 'barracks' for so long. I can agree that lend lease saved additional millions of Soviet lives but not that it led to them winning the war as they could, and nearly did, lose it before the end of 1941. What lend lease probably ensured is that the USSR could go over to frontal ( attack in the North while defending in center and South for instance) attack by mid-43 while not having all that help would have probably had them still barely clinging on or generally retreating. Even with lend lease the USSR were considering settlement ( as far as i can tell from my studies anyways) before the summer offensive season of 1943... When it's all said and done 1942 was very nearly as disastrous a year for the Soviet army as 1941 was.

he also stated russai would not have the means to fight back if it wasn't for the US.

In one paragraph it seems that way but then in the next he contradicts himself by suggestion serious shortages instead... I wont call him a liar, as nothing i have read indicates that, but it does seem that he is contradicting his earlier statements so i am wondering about the translation or what was maybe not recorded in the transcripts...

the lend lease gave them the materials they needed to fight back which they lacked,

Later on it sure did but by that time the US could have probably used those materials better for it's own troops leading to a 'free' Europe and a far milder cold war. If anything it saved hundreds of thousands (If not millions) of American/British/CM lives but where the resources went would not have fundamentally affected the outcome on the European war( a virtual stalemate om the east front by mid 43 with or without lend lease) and probably enabling a ( imagine Anzio/Salerno type conditions attrition levels but force levels on D-Day scale ) American and British invasion of Europe proper 6 months or a year earlier.

********

Will continue my response later today.

Stellar

[edit on 14-2-2007 by StellarX]

I do agree that russia did prevent army divisions from fighting in western europe but that was only possible because of US efforts to make sure her allies didn't falter. you honestly think russia could have defended and made that push had they not been properly supplied? it's recorded in history that they lacked the supplies needed to fight that war they overproduced the wrong materials needed for war and ended up badly needing equipment they didn't mass produce like they should of for war. the troops would have starved because of no means for transport. the winter helped also.

I do not see the contradiction you pointed out.









[edit on 14-2-2007 by ape]

Barbarrosa was lost before it began for 3 big reasons:

1. Hitler failed to reach terms with the British before turning east.
2. 20 German divisions, including elite airborne and armor units, were chewed up in North Africa, Greece and the Balkins in support of Mussilini's failed adventures before the attack, which also pushed the starting date back into June instead of early May.
3 The total failure of Nazi economic management in putting Germany on a total warfighting economy.

It is widely accepted that Churchill did everything in his power to delay the opening of a second front in Northern Europe in order to bleed the Russians as much as possible, which Stalin cooperated with by setting his generals against each other in the dash to Berlin. D-Day was launched when the real fear became that Russian tanks would reach Gibralter by the end of 1945.

P-40 and truck shipments to Russia were key elements in the offensives of 1944, prideful communist boasting notwithstanding. The mobility and alternative opportunity afforded by these were critical in Soviet success.
While the Germans were using horses the Russians had trucks, and with- out source materials at hand, I believe I'm accurate to state that by '44 over 75% of the trucks in the system were American.

Back to modern affairs:

I still don't see how an Army manned by unwilling conscripts that finds itself beset with hazing and prostituion scandels (BBC) can be considered an effective fighting force.

I don't see how special forces that botched Beslan and the Moscow theatre hostage crises and provided no definitive victories in Chechnya can be considered world class.

I don't see how a navy that is unable to sortie more than 1 boomer at a time and stage only limited exercises with attack subs can shut off Atlantic traffic. They could not even raise the Kursk by themselves.

I don't see how an air force that lacks pilots with many hours of flying experience and training defeats one that does.

I don't see how an EW /SAM defence system that historically has failed to
even challenge American Air Dominance can be assumed to have solved that problem with new technology.

While America is wearing out it's material edge with damaged equipment and casualties in Iraq, and Putin is spending his oil money arming, the gap between U.S and Russian capabilities remains stark.

In terms of people and systems, there is simply no comparison between these countries.

Some bold assymetric strategy may be contemplated in the Kremlin as a way to assert it's power; let us hope that these military solutions remain speculative.

In the meantime Russia's natural gas is it's greatest weapon, and demographics it's worst enemy.

Originally posted by ape
once again zhkuov is on record for saying this, you can twist it up all you want zhukov was a soviet national hero, look up the statistics of the lend lease it cannot be denied, the soviets would have fell. look up the author and what he said. you're misinformed stop spreading communist propaganda i'm talking about the entire war here, they didnt have trucks or locomotives to carry troops or supplies to the front lines. it's this type of equipment that won the war.

HAHAH posting history channel forums, you're pathetic. i'm posting actual fact here not opinion, all of my information is documented, boy.



[edit on 14-2-2007 by ape]

look up the statistics of the lend lease it cannot be denied,

for the trucks, radio equipment and fuel and certain type explosives (which was massive ) ,

they didnt have trucks or locomotives to carry troops or supplies to the front lines.

the correction here is front lines of eastern europe
so you are proving my point here(thank you) , the logistics were american that helped the soviets in quickly defeating germany in 1.5 yrs
the 90 % trucks were american(recieved after 1943) ,,but steel, tank industry, had been shifted to the Urals in 1941 during the operation barborassa but the locomotive,steel, tank industry, had been shifted to the Urals in 1941 during the operation barborassa and battle of stalingrad , when lend lease was not significant .... and zhukov became the main commander after the success of Kursk battle, lend lease was decisive in recapture of eastern europe in

as you yourself are proving my point, i will repeat , my statement as i stated before former posts (which you did not read) as you have provided info on zhukov emphasisin on the necessary logicistics

HAHAH posting history channel forums, you're pathetic. i'm posting actual fact here not opinion, all of my information is documented, boy.

there is a lot of type of info , dependin on what you believe ...like the book of walter(hitler's nemesis) , as this guy having seen russian archives on stalin , has this to say :

Second Front Now 1943, published in 1981, presented the thesis that the second
front was possible in 1943 and desirable from the Western point of view. The
conclusion of this study is that the Soviets did not need, and Stalin did not want,
a second front in 1943, at least in France. Although most Russians would have
welcomed the assistance to reduce casualties, there is reason to believe that
Stalin did not want an earlier invasion and subsequent movement far to the east
of the meeting point of the two armies, even if more Russian casualties
occurred
www.questia.com...
------------------
By early 1943 the Red Army could defeat the Wermacht without military
assistance, but to do so required enormous quantities of advanced weapons and
an army of at least 5 million men. The cost in lives would run in the millions.
The Americans and especially the British feared heavy casualties. Public
opinion in both countries would have balked at a war dragging on for years with
millions of casualties. It took a concerted effort by the British and Americans to overcome about a hundred German divisions from 1943 to 1945 after the Germans had been defeated on the Eastern Front.
The question of whether the Russians needed a second front in 1943 is a
sequel to the thesis that launching an attack in France was not only possible in
1943 but advantageous to the West, presented in Second Front Now 1943
(published in 1981). The second front was not essential to the Soviets after early 1943. According to one Soviet historian, "After this [the Battle of Stalin- grad] nobody could any longer doubt the ability of the Soviet Army to crush Nazi Germany singlehandedly
www.questia.com...

[edit on 15-2-2007 by vK_man]

Then you need to start reading as i have done rather more than that in the last year

I read it and it only proves your point that to on USSR capable of winning nuclear war with west and
USA..

They were sworn enemies and you really need to read at least some history before you continue...

nonsense , here see the combatant list:

Combatants
Soviet Union
Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Afghan and foreign Mujahideen rebels supported by nations such as:
United States,
Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan,
Iran,
United Kingdom,
PR China
en.wikipedia.org...

Go investigate the train wreck as satellite imagery makes it quite clear that it was no regular train wreck.

what there were spy statellites in space in 1950-53(korean war)
THE BIGGEST JOKE OF HISTORY , THE FIRST SAT IN SPACE WAS SPUTNIK IN 1957 .......

Says the person who relies on mister Krutov for his scientific evaluation of the balance of strategic arms.

says the person, who says that russia is invincible to nuclear strike

That is much like predicting that human beings will in the near future still be required to breath for survival. I could very well claim that there is rising Stalinism in the US as well as many people there seem to like dictatorial rule and a aggressive foreign policy...

wow... now this is funny .... as stalinism is rising in russia

Anatoly Golitsyn predict so much of this?

slightly offtopic ....even gurion had a a view of the future of world in 1962 that turned to be true , even protocols of zion has had many objectives achieved ... anyways not worthwhile discussin ... as political insiders plan years before


[edit on 15-2-2007 by vK_man]

Continued

Originally posted by ape
stated russai would not have the means to fight back if it wasn't for the US. the lend lease gave them the materials they needed to fight back which they lacked, the raw materials to produce etc and the automobiles and trains to transport supplies to the front line, here once again I will start out with the most basic information available..

I would say that the pre war aid from the west enabled the Soviet union to consider attacking Germany in the rear leading to the production of armored units not suited to Russian field conditions but very efficient on roads and in well developed areas. The Soviet army also spent far too much time preparing for offensive operations and when the German blow landed they were deployed for offensive operations ( near the border with no depth and supplies not distributed but stockpiled at large rail centers) and simply lacked the general supplies and fuel to redeploy to the rear in any meaningful fashion. As it was the USSR barely preserved Moscow and Leningrad and had the Germans continued to treat the Russians with the same general disdain ( which happens when you just plan so well that the enemy behaves entirely predictable) army group center would have spent winter camping out in Moscow with the Siberian divisions having to deploy far further back for lack of supplies and a Moscow like base of operations.

The fact that the Nazi's did not do what they could have ( like in the BOB/Dunkirk/North-Africa) enabled the Russians to survive just long enough for lend lease to enable them to actually do more than just hang on by mid 43.

The list includes a high percentage of the high grade steel, communications
cable, canned foods of all types, medical supplies, and virtually every modern machine tool used by Soviet industry. Not to mention the "know-how required to use and maintain this equipment.i forgot which thread you said this in, but i remember it was along the lines of ' the americans and british struggled with the germans while the soviets decimated the german army in the east blah blah blah garbage '.

Well those machine tools were certainly there before 1941 otherwise the USSR could not have built tens of thousands of tanks and the supposed best artillery pieces in the world. Sorry but lend lease during the second world war did not save the USSR in 1941 or 1942 but surely enabled them to reach Berlin and most of Eastern Europe before the allies had any chance to do so. Basically lend lease ( and the aid in the 20's and 30's ) enabled the Soviet Union to become a serious contender to US strategic might decades sooner than it otherwise could or would have.

quoting zhukov,
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . .

He must be addressing a really ignorant audiance as no serious scholar of the second world war questions the scale and result of lend-lease...

However, 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*** . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance 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 had all this ourselves in abundance.'

While he must have good reason for saying that i know that they did in fact have factories producing such arms within weeks ( and almost always a month or two) after the relocation and while they were producing nowhere near enough to keep up with the massive losses ( when you lose depot's of the sizes they were to say nothing of army groups and entire fronts ) and there certainly were dire shortages of artillery rounds.

'

"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.

Considering what he just said earlier one begins to wonder who's translating as his already contradicting himself. Either they could do it without or they could not but 'serious' is just a opinion (even thought his opinion is certainly worth far more than almost anyone 's ) and Stalin was VERY secretive when it came to supply levels or the status of reserve armies and the like.

Without American `Studebekkers' we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries."

No argument from me but in defensive warfare you don''t need to drag stuff around nearly as much so they could have done without even if that would have robbed them of what little initiative they were slowly gaining.

'Moreover, underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and 1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs in 1963.

Backwards in terms of many things but the production of armor/artillery and planes certainly shows that their military industrial complex were quite well developed if not always furnished with the required raw materials.

oh israel will hit iran first and i'm hoping the US gives them air and naval support.

The IAF lacks the range to take out Iran's nuclear related infrastructure and fighting a air war against Iran will be certainly be no easy task. That being said it's the Israeli's and they are well known for not caring about the odds and bending reality to somehow favour them. I think it would be a very bad idea for the US to get involved in Iran ( if for no other reason that Iran's mutual defense treaty with Russia; it will be a very 'stormy' year with weather you haven't seen before.) but since the entire US foreign policy seems to be bent on national suicide i won't rule it out.

you would like to see another muslim bomb wouldnt you?

I won't mind one bit as my country have not spent the last ten decades terrorizing Muslim nations in so many horrible ways.

Stellar

Apparently the strike will be conducted from US carriers against Iran, the surrounding countries allied to the West will be 'protected' with PAC-2 missiles. Which are known for their 'reliability'.

I think fighting a proxy war might be a better to avoid global nuke fest.

USA/UK - > Israel == Iran

hmm people are missing the entire point, between 41 and 45 russia only produced twenty locomotives, this says it all.

all soviet locomotive plants were converted and busily churning out T-34s and SUs. during Cold War all traces of lend lease and after UNRRA help were meticulously sanitized and removed, photos of soviet soldiers riding Shermans, Universal Carriers or manning AAA guns were excluded from books and never appeared in magazines. students could learn about lend lease in two sentences in their textbooks.

some key supplies were given that enabled the soviets to concentrate their war production on other areas. for instance aircraft and avaition fuel in general was a decisive help. It provided the higher octane fuels that were required in higher performance engines.

also trucks and railroad engines enabled them to concentrate production on armour, if this wasnt provided in massive qualntities as shown above the soviets would have had to divert production to these.

soviet operations such as bagration would have been near impossible without the transport provided and the Soviets would never have been as mobile, allowing the german forces to dance around them...

another fundamental point here is that the soviets could concentrate more manpower in their armed forces instead of having them in the production lines.

logistics win modern wars and the allies provided the logistic capability to the soviets

once again zhukov stated this and confirmed it, this is recorded in histroy. basically what you're doing VK-man is saying zhukov is a liar.

even before germany invaded russia urgent supplies were sent to the soviets with the help of 50 million dollars credit advanced by the US. russia still owes the US over 700 million dollars but they are so broke they cant pay it and they refuse to pay it. what a joke.

check out this site, i'm sure everyone will dig on it...

www.theeasternfront.co.uk...





[edit on 15-2-2007 by ape]

basically what you're doing VK-man is saying zhukov is a liar.

nonsense , did i claim that you moron,

another fundamental point here is that the soviets could concentrate more manpower in their armed forces instead of having them in the production lines

they were concentrating older men and women in the production line

allowing the german forces to dance around them...

that is disagreeable because the russian winter had stopped them ..

hmm people are missing the entire point, between 41 and 45 russia only produced twenty locomotives, this says it all.

because the soviets used the scorched earth policy , they destroyed theri railroads , locos when the germans barborassa was underway to slow down the german advance..

all soviet locomotive plants were converted and busily churning out T-34s and SUs. during Cold War all traces of lend lease and after UNRRA help were meticulously sanitized and removed, photos of soviet soldiers riding Shermans, Universal Carriers or manning AAA guns were excluded from books and never appeared in magazines. students could learn about lend lease in two sentences in their textbooks.

nonsense again , the soviet children were told about the logistics (however small in comaprison to soviet war effort it constituted about 15 per cent of the total equipment used by the USSR,) helped them capture germany quickly

frm a soviet ukrainian histroian on lend lease:

although it constituted about 15 per cent of the total equipment used by the USSR, particularly almost one-half million American trucks. It was said that the only thing that moved through the mud towards Germany were the Ukrainian T-34 tanks with their wide tracks and the American Studebaker trucks.
The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food. This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war. Britain supplied 5,800 planes, 4,292 tanks, and 12 minesweepers. Canada supplied 1,188 tanks, 842 armoured cars, nearly one million shells, and 208,000 tons of wheat and flour. The USSR depended on American trucks for its mobility since 427,000 out of 665,000 motor vehicles (trucks and jeeps) at the end of the war were of western origin
www.infoukes.com...

for instance aircraft and avaition fuel in general was a decisive help. It provided the higher octane fuels that were required in higher performance engines

to be precise the aviation fuel ...

also trucks and railroad engines enabled them to concentrate production on armour

the trucks provided by american were a decisive help in the russian offensive from late 1943 to 1945 ....



maybe i may show you something that you will partially disagree with (this was said by samuel cohen the inventor of neutron bomb a highly respected american scientist):
-----
SEAPOWER: Cohen said navies have become "obsolete" in terms of global warfare using nuclear weapons, and he described floating ships as "sitting ducks" for nuclear weapons. The U.S. Navy depends on AEGIS missile defense systems to protect its fleets, but Cohen said AEGIS has failed all of its tests, and there is no proof that it could fend off a multi-missile strike against a fleet, let alone a country

www.manuelsweb.com...


[edit on 16-2-2007 by vK_man]

[edit on 16-2-2007 by vK_man]

STEllARX posted:

Last time i checked British fleet escort ships managed to find submarine periscopes by means of radar so please don't tell me aircraft could not be tracked below 500 meters.

stellar X , pls read this :
Most modern radar systems use this principle in the pulse-doppler radar system. Return signals from targets are shifted away from this base frequency via the Doppler effect enabling the calculation of the speed of -the object relative to the radar.
-------------------
Clutter refers to actual radio frequency (RF) echoes returned from targets which are by definition uninteresting to the radar operators in general. Such targets mostly include natural objects such as ground, sea, precipitation (such as rain, snow or hail), sand storms, animals (especially birds), atmospheric turbulence, and other atmospheric effects (such as ionosphere reflections and meteor trails). Clutter may also be returned from man-made objects such as buildings and, intentionally,Clutter may also be returned from man-made objects such as buildings and, intentionally, by radar countermeasures such as chaff.
----------------------

cruise missiles are difficult to detect and differentiate because of ground based clutter ...

Russian repaid USA for lend lease with Alaska.