WI: No Lend-Lease to the Soviets

[Slamet]

Originally Posted by CanadianGoose

It is possible that Studebakers were not numerical majority, but they were damn important. They were relied upon to sustain most critical components in logistic tasks. Mobile platform for Katyusha rockets, crack infantry troops to support tank assaults, AT artillery regiments to break German tank attacks. May be not crucial, but definitely important.

Western tanks were really a mixed bag. Grants were completely and utterly despised by their crews and phased out immediately as soon as replacements were avaliable. However, British Matildas were liked in early period of war for their ruggedness and thick armour. They were severely undergunned, but it was lesser sin pre-1944. Shermans were called "the best tank to have in peacetime", appreciated for creature comfort but disliked for relatively poor defensive and offensive capabilities for such a large vehicle. However, Red Army did use them until war's end.

Not only that. High-octane gas (usually mixed with lower-grade Soviet fuel) was appreciated by Air Force very much, phone cable was very important, as well as many types of planes (Hurricanes weren't liked, but Aircobras and Bostons were).

1) I was under the image that the Katyushas were only mounted on GAZ and other Soviet trucks. Then I met the BM-13S and the BM-8-48. But they made up little percentage of the Soviet Katyusha corps and could be substituted

2) They weren't really an inseperable pile, the Western armor and the Soviets'. The Western armor, though it did fill entire battalions and even divisions, were mainly useless on the Soviets' initial breakthroughs. The M4's tracks were not suitable to Russian soil and in winters they often bogged down. The Churchills, in winter they didn't have rubber-plated tracks and became giant uncontrollable winter skates. Anyway, the Churchills became prey before they even reached the Russian mainland. U-Boats.

3) Aircobras were much valued for their ground attack. You're dead right for the high octane fuel though!

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally Posted by Slamet

The Lend-Lease freed up several factories' worth of production lines from making trucks, is that the common assumption?
Well, lookie here :
http://www.autogallery.org.ru/gal.htm

I think that's the correct statistics. As you can see Studebakers made a relatively few percentage of the total Soviet transports.

As for tanks, the Grant was even called the 'field crematorium' and 'grave for seven brothers'. Really, the Western tanks served only at most for stop gaps in Soviet divisions.
What the Soviets really appreciated was the Jeeps and cans of Spam. The Jeeps provided good recon and provided good couriers for advancing units. The cans of Spam saved several thousand lives.

I'm going to have to dispute the validity of the statistics from that website; Wikipedia gives very different numbers (2/3 of Soviet trucks US-built) and the political content of the site (Very anti-US and pro-Russia) raises questions about its objectivity.

[Slamet]

OK, that site is pro-Russian. But if the SU wanted to, IMO it could produce as much trucks in short order.

[Dave Howery]

I have to go along with the comments that the Red Army would be less mobile but still about unstoppable... the actual tanks the allies sent weren't up to Russian standards, but the Russians used them anyway. The trucks, jeeps, and halftracks were probably more useful. It seems to me that the USSR just outweighs Germany so much that even without Lend Lease, it'd still win, it'd just take longer...

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally Posted by Slamet

OK, that site is pro-Russian. But if the SU wanted to, IMO it could produce as much trucks in short order.

The Soviets could certainly ramp up truck production, the problem is that in order to do so they would either have to cut production somewhere else like tanks or build new factories and pull soldiers off the frontlines to man them.

[Temujin]

I think too that lack of Lend-Lease would severely affect the SU and butterfly many events out of the way. It was important in allowing the Soviet steam roller to advance, as well as providing basic necessities such as food and fuel. Their logistics struggled to cope as it was, without Lend-Lease they would be severely hampered.

I think eventually they would win out but will reach Berlin much later than OTL, with far greater losses. This is going to affect European politics and shape the Soviet's. Do you think it would be sufficient enough to allow the Western Allies to reach Berlin first?

[Blochead]

As others have said, the USSR is still going to win, it's just going to take longer.

The really interesting question is what happens afterward. How much further do the western Allies advance in TTL? As Temujin mentioned, I'd think at least to Berlin. Further would probably start making Stalin a little antsy. How does their encroachment on Stalin's 'sphere of influence' alter his policies, especially in light of the hard feelings that will surely stem from a lack of Allied-Soviet cooperation?

[jmacatty]

The first thought which came to my mind, and remains, is really, what would be the effect on the Western Allies. The Soviets would likely have gotten through the war with the same end result, although different intermediate results. The West, on the other hand, would have a less relaible ally, and little appreciable effect on its own readiness (manpower was really a bigger issue than production). I think the chances of a split between the allies, and a separate Russo-German peace more likely, though not very. I think the most likely result would be higher casualties for the West, and a result similar to OTL.

[Johnrankins]

The results will be different as the Western Allies are most likely much farther east. They could well take Poland before the Russians do.

[abas]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

The results will be different as the Western Allies are most likely much farther east. They could well take Poland before the Russians do.

Hardly. The result in this case would be many times more dead Americans and Brits

[Alratan]

Amongst other things, the US sent an entire oil refinary to the SU, to make Avgas. That alone would have a noticeable impact.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnrankins
The results will be different as the Western Allies are most likely much farther east. They could well take Poland before the Russians do.

Originally Posted by abas

Hardly. The result in this case would be many times more dead Americans and Brits

Would not the two likely go together?

A less effectice SU results in more fighting being done by the other Allies thus more causulties and more territory.

Although if the war is extended enough that D-Day or an equivelant has not taken place before the Bomb is developed I could see a Germany surrender that saves a lot of American and British lives and stops the Soviets where ever they are when the cease-fire is announced or their old border (if they weren't that far).

[abas]

Originally Posted by Corbell Mark IV

Would not the two likely go together?

A less effectice SU results in more fighting being done by the other Allies thus more causulties and more territory.

A less effectice SU results in more fighting being done by the other Allies thus more causulties( for sure) and more territory (maybe). The main point was geographical: Poland is in another side from possible place of allied invasion, so more likely the war would end earler.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by abas

Hardly. The result in this case would be many times more dead Americans and Brits

Likely BOTH. The Germans will still have huge numbers of troops in Russia for Anti-Partisan campagins and that won't change. What will change is Russia has considerably fewer troops, tanks, artillary and planes as compared to OTL. They will take territory back but it will be slow and agrevating. The US invades France in 1945 or 1946 but with more divisions. The Germans will have to send troops back but that will be slow when most of the troops have to go through the bombed out roads and bridges in Eastern Europe. Once the US has a large foothold in France it will be difficult for the Germans to stop a flood of US troops going into Europe and the French will raise troops themselves, mostly fit for garrison duty. Germany ships a lot of troops west but it will take time and the Russians will be able to go little faster then foot speed. By 1947 or 1948 the Western Allies pour into Germany and most of the German troops are fighting mainly to get home. They will have simular problems as the Russians by this time and also will only be able to move little faster then foot speed.

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

The US invades France in 1945 or 1946 but with more divisions

why so late? Without LL, you'd think the US could arm itself faster... although that doesn't mean you could train troops any faster, but D-Day should still be able to get off the ground in 1944.

what was the dollar amount of aid given to Russia? The US would have that much more cash on hand after the war.

I wonder if the Russian front might not collapse anyway, so far as Germany is concerned. As is well known, the Germans vastly preferred to surrender to the west rather than submit to the tender mercies of the Russians... in this TL, where the Russians are moving slower, one wonders if the German troops in the east wouldn't sneak away to give themselves up to the west...

[Johnrankins]

It will also take a hell of a lot more casuaties in North Africa. The Germans could and would reinforce Rommel and that makes it more bloody. Also there will be far more Germans in France so it will take a lot more troops and a lot more bombing for there to be a succesful US/UK landing.

[Blochead]

I'm not sure how many divisions the Germans could free up from Russia - even with less equipment, there are still a lot of Soviet soldiers that will need to be engaged at some point, and digesting Russia would still require a rather large occupation force. I am not sure if the Germans could pull a Brest-Litovsk type move here. While the lack of mobility does make defense more difficult, it doesn't compare to the obstacles it places on offensive maneuvers.

[Slamet]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

The results will be different as the Western Allies are most likely much farther east. They could well take Poland before the Russians do.

No, they wouldn't. Assuming that the Allies did D-Day, they would've probably stopped once the German industrial areas in the lower Ruhr had been occupied.
They wouldn't try to attack Berlin since that would cause severe drops in the diplomatic relations between the Western Allies and the SU. I mean, the SU came fighting and sacrificed 6 million men to get there (probably more ITTL) all to have the Western Allies snatch it from their noses.
Eisenhower and Roosevelt were very worried about this and they also trusted Stalin too much. Churchill will rant all he wants, but Poland stays Red.

[Slamet]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

It will also take a hell of a lot more casuaties in North Africa. The Germans could and would reinforce Rommel and that makes it more bloody. Also there will be far more Germans in France so it will take a lot more troops and a lot more bombing for there to be a succesful US/UK landing.

I'm not sure that the Germans were prepared to pull off that many divisions from Russia, seeing that Russia without lend-lease can be held off for much longer.

So in 1942 there's a stalemate in Russia, with neither gaining the upper hand just yet. So if they pull back a few divisions from the Russian TO and move it to Rommel, the SU might get an upper hand. Same goes for France. They need all the help in the SU they can get.

[CanadianGoose]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

The results will be different as the Western Allies are most likely much farther east. They could well take Poland before the Russians do.

Originally Posted by abas

Hardly. The result in this case would be many times more dead Americans and Brits

Would Churchill and Roosevelt be ready to slaughter million of American and British kids to save Eastern Europe from Ruskies, the result would be both Americans in Poland and millions of American graves on the way there. Question is, where to get Churchills and Roosevelts willing to slaughter millions of their countrymen.

Originally Posted by Corbell Mark IV

Would not the two likely go together?

A less effectice SU results in more fighting being done by the other Allies thus more causulties and more territory.

Great minds work alike

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

why so late? Without LL, you'd think the US could arm itself faster... although that doesn't mean you could train troops any faster, but D-Day should still be able to get off the ground in 1944.

Americans and Britons could be ready by 1944 ITTL, but they would have to deal with battle-ready German units in Normandy, not anemic shadows of fighting force mauled by Russians they encountered IOTL. This COULD delay invasion considerably, Dieppe showed how bad Allied chances are against good German troops.

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

in this TL, where the Russians are moving slower, one wonders if the German troops in the east wouldn't sneak away to give themselves up to the west...

I dunno, something does not fit for me in this picture of "sneaking Germans". They could not sneak more than 50 miles anyway, not with kind of system put in place by Nazi.

Originally Posted by Slamet

So in 1942 there's a stalemate in Russia, with neither gaining the upper hand just yet. So if they pull back a few divisions from the Russian TO and move it to Rommel, the SU might get an upper hand. Same goes for France. They need all the help in the SU they can get.

Stalemate in Russia could allow Germans to pull some Air Force from there and use it to secure supply lines to Rommel (destroy Allied naval supremacy in Mediterranean). This can change situation pretty drastically. Rommel had been chocked by supply disruptions as much as beaten on battlefields IOTL.