Deleted member 1487
That was always a bluff, Stalin could not survive a peace deal.Why? No LL and support for country which tied 75% German land troops we can see separate peace.
That was always a bluff, Stalin could not survive a peace deal.Why? No LL and support for country which tied 75% German land troops we can see separate peace.
Are you sure? He survived defeats of summer 1941 after all.That was always a bluff, Stalin could not survive a peace deal.
Soviet grain was not enough to keep soldiers fit to fight.
According to Krivosheev the RA had 20 600 tanks+spgs on 1st January 43 of which 8100 were in the ToO.
Sure, but accepting those defeat as permanent is something entirely different, which is what a separate peace would effectively be saying. It's admitting failure. I may be wrong though, Stalin was quite savage and might have preemptively purged just to be safe.Are you sure? He survived defeats of summer 1941 after all.
Saving studied nutrition a fair bit 22% from fats and protein is tiny for a very active person. Its a pretty poor diet to be getting 78% of calories from carbs. For small, thin people that might be enough protein, but at a minimum an active soldier should really be getting over 30% of calories just from protein and carbs as energy shouldn't be more than 50% of the diet. So while on paper you can survive on just sugar, as it would theoretically provide you all the calories you needed, you're missing major macro nutrients. That's not even getting into the mirco nurtient requirements. Doctors have little training with nutrition, so don't rely on their at best 2 weeks of training on it their entire medical education (at best).Yes it was. As you yourself observed (and I pretty much stated), the lend-lease provided things like fats and oils. But these were supplemental to the Soviet diet, not staple. Your assertion that it would not be enough is not true. I can't find a yearly breakdown of the average for Soviet rations but I can find the average for the entire war: 3,450 calories for active combat units, 2,954 for active duty at the rear, 2,822 for those not assigned to the field army, 4,712 for those in the VVS, and 3,243 in hospital (page 127). Fats and protein make up roughly 22% of the daily rations in grams, with the rest coming from carbohydrates.
Even if we, for the moment, accept the 38% number (which could be true, I'm not fully informed on how much protein and fats contribute in calories as opposed to carbohydrates. The numbers aspect science were never my strong suit, even though I can grasp concepts decently. My parents are doctors, probably could ask them)... well above the daily minimum of recommended daily caloric intake is a maximum of 1,500 calories. Grabbing the active combat units figure, 38% of that is 1,311. 3,450-1,311 leaves us with 2,139... more then 600 calories over the daily recommended minimum and nearly a thousand calories more then Japanese soldiers at the peak of their daily rations, who were able to fight and kill just fine.
So Soviet soldiers would be hungrier, yes, but not so hungry as being unable to fight.
And the rest of your statistics are for lend-lease as a whole, the massive bulk of which arrived after Stalingrad had been decided.
Saving studied nutrition a fair bit 22% from fats and protein is tiny for a very active person. Its a pretty poor diet to be getting 78% of calories from carbs. For small, thin people that might be enough protein, but at a minimum an active soldier should really be getting over 30% of calories just from protein and carbs as energy shouldn't be more than 50% of the diet. So while on paper you can survive on just sugar, as it would theoretically provide you all the calories you needed, you're missing major macro nutrients.
Sure the majority of LL arrived after 1942, but until then it was pretty critical in terms of things like high capacity machine tools, fuels, and other raw materials.
So Stalingrad is unlikely to end in a Soviet victory without it.
(they enforced that rigorously until 1944 IIRC).
Yeah with it, which was not really good enough. Without it though?Except Soviet soldiers did survive on that much, fought on that much, and won on that much. In addition, we have another major combatant (Japan) whose soldiers were able to survive, fight, and even sometimes win battles on even less then that. Yes, the Soviet soldiers diet was poor. But it wasn't ever a diet that compromised their ability to resist nor do the numbers suggest that it would be without lend-lease.
http://www.o5m6.de/LL_Routes.htmlNo it was not. The bulk of what arrived in 1941-42 were actually weapons. In terms of raw materials, fuels, and machine tools, the Soviets were overwhelmingly relying on their internal stocks or substitution there-of.
Which may be true, but the many of those were made with US/UK metals, US/UK machine tools, fueled by US petroleum products, and equipped with US explosives among other things.There is little reason to believe this. The weapons involved in Uranus were all Soviet produced as were the gross majority of the vehicles and ammunition.
Do you have a source on this? I'm looking through my LL sources and cannot find any reference to the Japanese ATM.No they didn't. Japanese enforcement was pretty poor throughout the war, with a big drop occurring in the latter part of 1942 as a function of Midway making Japan really not want to have to deal with the Soviet Union right now. It's no coincidence this was when the Pacific route began to pick back up.
Yeah with it, which was not really good enough.
Without it though?
Even if we, for the moment, accept the 38% number (which could be true, I'm not fully informed on how much protein and fats contribute in calories as opposed to carbohydrates. The numbers aspect of science were never my strong suit, even though I can grasp concepts decently. My parents are doctors, probably could ask them)... well, the daily minimum of recommended daily caloric intake is a maximum of 1,500 calories. Grabbing the active combat units figure, 38% of that is 1,311. 3,450-1,311 leaves us with 2,139... more then 600 calories over the daily recommended minimum and nearly a thousand calories more then Japanese soldiers, who were able to fight and kill just fine.
http://www.o5m6.de/LL_Routes.html
Doesn't seem to be the case. Metal, fuel, food were significantly more than vehicles and other categories.
Which may be true, but the many of those were made with US/UK metals, US/UK machine tools, fueled by US petroleum products, and equipped with US explosives among other things.
Do you have a source on this? I'm looking through my LL sources and cannot find any reference to the Japanese ATM.
With LL, we're talking about without it.Except it was good enough. The Soviets not only survived, but also inflicted the most devastating and important defeats of the war upon the Germans before carrying the war into the German capitol. That is most certainly "good enough".
Yeah you only talked about calories, not the loss of the 22% of fat and protein provided by LL. You cannot feed an army solely on bread and maybe potatoes.I already provided the math for that:
Weapons were made with foreign raw materials, machine tools, and supplies with foreign explosives and metal to make the ammo, plus of course fuel and trucks.So yeah, even without L-L food it's good enough. It's in logistics, communications, and economics the Soviets will suffer the most... not weapons.
Scroll down it breaks tonnages down.Your link doesn't say that. It just gives the tonnages shipped, but it doesn't break those tonnages down.
Most, but not all. Especially as the majority of aluminum and explosives, as well as almost all of the high octane avgas and most of the trucks and vehicles the Soviets used came from LL even having enough steel doesn't mean they have enough of the critical bottlenecks or that Soviet raw materials would have gone as far without high capacity US machine tools that the Soviets could not make and were labor and raw material saving. Fight defensively...the Soviets could survive 1942, but their ability to make enough to go on the attack successfully is questionable.In 1942 they were made with mostly Soviet metals, Soviet machine tools, fueled mostly by Soviet products, and equipped with Soviet explosives. Furthermore, there is nothing about lend-lease which determined the Soviets ability to outfight the Germans in the defensive battle at Stalingrad as they did OTL and outgeneral them for the offensive battle as they did OTL. The big changes due to the lack of lend-lease lay in 1943, not in 1942.
Right, during the period when the Japanese were enforcing contraband rules. After that though breakdowns of tonnage in the link I provided show that they mostly put the non-weapons through the Pacific Route.I recall Beevor mentioning it in the Second World War, as does Hastings in Inferno. It does line up with the numbers if you look in your link: first protocol shipments (which ended around Midway) came in from the Atlantic about ten times more then from the Pacific.
Yeah you only talked about calories, not the loss of the 22% of fat and protein provided by LL. You cannot feed an army solely on bread and maybe potatoes.
Weapons were made with foreign raw materials, machine tools, and supplies with foreign explosives and metal to make the ammo, plus of course fuel and trucks.
Scroll down it breaks tonnages down
Most, but not all. Especially as the majority of aluminum and explosives, as well as almost all of the high octane avgas and most of the trucks and vehicles the Soviets used came from LL
.the Soviets could survive 1942, but their ability to make enough to go on the attack successfully is questionable.
After that though breakdowns of tonnage in the link I provided show that they mostly put the non-weapons through the Pacific Route.
I clicked the link, if you scroll down passed the map there is a breakdown titled this:No it doesn't. There is no breakdown between cargo types, much less "weapons" and "non-weapons". It just gives "tonnage shipped". I don't know why you keep repeating this dishonesty when anyone can click the link and see it for themselves.
I clicked the link, if you scroll down passed the map there is a breakdown titled this:
Lend-Lease Shipments from the Western Hemisphere to the Soviet Union by Cargo Type, Protocol Period, Route and Tonnage
Back? I suppose they did take them briefly at the start of the war.IMO, yes, but not to the degree they 'won' in OTL. They'll still get rid of the Germans, but there'll be no Warsaw Pact, and they may not even get the Baltic States back.
Yes they did, quite unethically.Back? I suppose they did take them briefly at the start of the war.
Oh "must" I?You must be misreading Krivosheev
Why? No LL and support for country which tied 75% German land troops we can see separate peace.
They would not sink soviet ships it would be an act of war even if they were sending oil to japan
Oh "must" I?
View attachment 281766
So using the official Soviet numbers - which are quite questionable btw but lets use them - the Soviets had 8100 tanks and spgs on the frontlines in early 1943. If all of these 8100 were operational then the 1000 LL tanks would represent 12.5% of active Soviet tank stock - if only half of these 8100 tanks were operational then the number increases to 25%. In both cases the number is far from trivial.
Another, more difficult number to quantify, would be the how much the knowledge that massive LL deliveries were coming in '43-'45 had on existing Soviet production in '42.
After all, building up production capacity usually takes quite some time.
And it's probably fair to assume that they would have been forced to invest less in tank production capacity, and more in producing other stuff they now would be forced to aquire themselves.
Except not, because even accepting your number is true, for some reason the Soviets have 10,000 tanks sitting around doing nothing (which is the main reason my eyebrows are going up at this number... it's basically claiming that the Soviets do not have the majority of their armor committed to the war. How does Krivosheev define "theater of operations"?), they could easily make up for the lack of lend-lease tanks by taking just 1/10th of that. So yeah, no effect there.
Harrison actually has a chart on this: the Soviets basically terminated longer term investments in 1942 and only picked it back up in 1943. In '42, they were dumping pretty much everything into guns while cutting butter down to the bone.