The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities

**xinhui** · 10 Jul 12,, 04:56

Not sure this has been posted or not. I am watching it now and it is fairly good.

COL (Ret) David M. Glantz, Editor, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, presents "The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities," as part of the Perspectives in Military History Lecture Series. The U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center sponsors a monthly public lecture series, "Perspectives in Military History," which provides a historical dimension to the exercise of generalship, strategic leadership, and the war fighting institutions of land power. Learn more at The U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center (USAHEC)

**bolo121** · 10 Jul 12,, 07:25

"...Red Army had lost 2.8 million men by 1 October 1.6 million more by 31 december."
Yet they still raised 821 division equivalents!

"Thats like losing the entire Unites States Army today 30 times over".......

Even after having read such numbers before, the mind still boggles at the sheer scale of the bloodletting.

**xinhui** · 10 Jul 12,, 19:21

I have read Glantz's work before and found them to be very good, I just have no idea he is that dynamic of a speaker. Also, his assessment of the 6th army is doomed at the start is dead on.

**zraver** · 11 Jul 12,, 02:23

Originally Posted by xinhui

I have read Glantz's work before and found them to be very good, I just have no idea he is that dynamic of a speaker. Also, his assessment of the 6th army is doomed at the start is dead on.

He contradicts himself later when he talks about the move of 11th army to Leningrad. He directly implies that the presence of 11th army may have had a major impact. Overall I think Glantz is a good researcher, but a lot of his conclusions are based on decidedly shaky reasoning and very narrowly constrained non-dynamic arguments. He is definitely a go-to source for numbers but is good for little else.

For example, he talks about all the units the Soviets created in 41 and how the fall of Moscow would not have mattered. He does not address how the Soviets would have supported the Moscow counter attack without the use of the Moscow rail hub. IIRC he claims that even without LL aid the Soviets would have taken Berlin and bases this solely on numbers of men in the field. Never mind that without LL the Soviets have 4 choices- no deep operations, fewer tanks and more trucks from domestic sources, fewer soldiers and more factory workers or some combination of the previous 3.

**Mihais** · 11 Jul 12,, 06:52

Xinhui,I'll listen Glantz when I'll have the time,but if he really said that about the 6th army,he's dead wrong.

**Gun Boat** · 12 Jul 12,, 04:27

Originally Posted by zraver

He contradicts himself later when he talks about the move of 11th army to Leningrad. He directly implies that the presence of 11th army may have had a major impact. Overall I think Glantz is a good researcher, but a lot of his conclusions are based on decidedly shaky reasoning and very narrowly constrained non-dynamic arguments. He is definitely a go-to source for numbers but is good for little else.

For example, he talks about all the units the Soviets created in 41 and how the fall of Moscow would not have mattered. He does not address how the Soviets would have supported the Moscow counter attack without the use of the Moscow rail hub. IIRC he claims that even without LL aid the Soviets would have taken Berlin and bases this solely on numbers of men in the field. Never mind that without LL the Soviets have 4 choices- no deep operations, fewer tanks and more trucks from domestic sources, fewer soldiers and more factory workers or some combination of the previous 3.

I cannot get my head around the notion that even without Lend Lease the Russians could have defeated Germany. Even with the Russians building their own trucks where do they get the tyres from? And what about all the rolling stock and locomotives etc? I doubt they could even turn tide without Lend Lease.

**zraver** · 12 Jul 12,, 21:23

Originally Posted by Gun Boat

I cannot get my head around the notion that even without Lend Lease the Russians could have defeated Germany. Even with the Russians building their own trucks where do they get the tyres from? And what about all the rolling stock and locomotives etc? I doubt they could even turn tide without Lend Lease.

They would also only have maybe 2/3rds the ammunition, 1/2 the TNT no hi-octane avgas and even more critical shortage of radios...

**clackers** · 13 Jul 12,, 10:04

Originally Posted by Gun Boat

I cannot get my head around the notion that even without Lend Lease the Russians could have defeated Germany.

Gunboat, Glantz states "Lend Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941-42."

He estimates that without Lend Lease's extra trucks, an additional 12-18 months is needed for Zhukov, Vassilevsky and Konev to defeat the Wehrmacht (English historian Andrew Roberts guesses twelve). Essentially, the Germans manage to escape more encirclements than they historically did as they retreat.

The Russians inflicted 80% of Germany's combat casualties in WWII. Add to that 1.7 million Rumanians, Italians, Hungarians, etc.

Stephen Ambrose (Band of Brothers, D-Day: June 6 1944, Eisenhower's biographies, et al) said that if the Normandy invasion had failed, " .. one of the consequences would not have been a Nazi victory. Almost surely, however, one of the consequences would have been a Communist victory in Europe. A Communist Germany, France, Low Countries, and Italy would have meant no NATO ..."

**Gun Boat** · 13 Jul 12,, 13:02

Originally Posted by clackers

Gunboat, Glantz states "Lend Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941-42."

He estimates that without Lend Lease's extra trucks, an additional 12-18 months is needed for Zhukov, Vassilevsky and Konev to defeat the Wehrmacht (English historian Andrew Roberts guesses twelve). Essentially, the Germans manage to escape more encirclements than they historically did as they retreat.

The Russians inflicted 80% of Germany's combat casualties in WWII. Add to that 1.7 million Rumanians, Italians, Hungarians, etc.

Stephen Ambrose (Band of Brothers, D-Day: June 6 1944, Eisenhower's biographies, et al) said that if the Normandy invasion had failed, " .. one of the consequences would not have been a Nazi victory. Almost surely, however, one of the consequences would have been a Communist victory in Europe. A Communist Germany, France, Low Countries, and Italy would have meant no NATO ..."

I was talking about the hypothetical scenarios where Russia recieves no Lend Lease at all. I just cannot see anyway that they could get to Berlin without those supplies. I'm not suggesting a German victory, just the soviets probably not even getting to Warsaw and the Allies eventually taking Germany. I just cannot see how they could replace what they got from Lend Lease.

**1979** · 13 Jul 12,, 17:32

Originally Posted by Gun Boat

I was talking about the hypothetical scenarios where Russia recieves no Lend Lease at all. I just cannot see anyway that they could get to Berlin without those supplies. I'm not suggesting a German victory, just the soviets probably not even getting to Warsaw and the Allies eventually taking Germany. I just cannot see how they could replace what they got from Lend Lease.

Two questions :

1 how many locomotives the SU had in 1941 ?
2 how many trucks did the red army used during the war that were not of LL origin ?

**zraver** · 13 Jul 12,, 23:58

Originally Posted by 1979

Two questions :

1 how many locomotives the SU had in 1941 ?

Not nearly as important as the number of trucks. The under-developed rail network means the railroads can only be used to set up depots, not supply units directly.

2 how many trucks did the red army used during the war that were not of LL origin ?

The Soviets started with 200,000 trucks (1/4 of the Germans) and built less than 200,000 trucks and military cars during WWII. Almost all of these were 2x4 or 2x6 designs. In contrast the US delivered over 350,000 trucks and 77,000 jeps all of them 4x4, 4x6 or 4x8 models. This gave the Red Army the ability to operate cross country in all but the worst weather. Without these trucks, Soviet offensives could not have sustained the pace of operations needed to fight encirclement battles. These shipments even had a major impact early in the war, by Dec 42 the US had shipped to the Soviets 60,000 trucks and 11,000 jeeps.

The trucks also allowed the Soviets to move their artillery. From mounting rockets on them to towing the 122mm M30 howitzer. Without US trucks the Soviet artillery pool is limited to a tractors road speed of about 10mph with poor reliability. LL also provided the chemicals for at least a third of all Soviet artillery ammunition, half of their TnT and all of their high octane av-gas. LL also provided 20% of the combat aircraft of the VVS, over half the transport aircraft, 1/12th of the tanks of the Red Army, 10% of the machine guns, at least a quarter of the radios, 56% of the aluminum, 67,000 miles of rails....

This is why I don't like Glantz, he assumes that the lack of trucks would only slow them down not stop them. But the scale and pace of Soviet operations in built on a LL foundation of trucks, radios and ammunition. For the Soviets to compensate with Domestic production means fewer men for the Red Army. To do without means only 1 offensive at a time per campaign season not 2-3. Plus the offensives they did launch could not have penetrated nearly so far or been of such breadth. The Germans needed 800,000 vehicles to reach Moscow and by then the truck fleet was so battered they could only support one offensive in 42. How are the Soviets going to retrace that path with 1/8th the starting number of trucks plus another 200k made during the war (Germany made 345K during the war).

Plus without LL from the UK Moscow might have fallen. UK LL amounted to 1/3rd of the Soviet tanks (more than 1/2 of the medium and heavy tanks) and 1/8th of the fighter aircraft during the Winter of 41-42.

No LL means the Soviets are lucky to ever reach the Polish border.

**1979** · 14 Jul 12,, 06:16

Originally Posted by zraver

Not nearly as important as the number of trucks. The under-developed rail network means the railroads can only be used to set up depots, not supply units directly.

It was 28.000 and rail moves not only supplies but entire combat units as well.

Originally Posted by zraver

The Soviets started with 200,000 trucks (1/4 of the Germans) and built less than 200,000 trucks and military cars during WWII. Almost all of these were 2x4 or 2x6 designs. In contrast the US delivered over 350,000 trucks and 77,000 jeps all of them 4x4, 4x6 or 4x8 models. This gave the Red Army the ability to operate cross country in all but the worst weather. Without these trucks, Soviet offensives could not have sustained the pace of operations needed to fight encirclement battles. These shipments even had a major impact early in the war, by Dec 42 the US had shipped to the Soviets 60,000 trucks and 11,000 jeeps.

Actually they started with 272.000 , requisitioned 267.000 from the civilian sector and build 197.000 during the war for a total of 736.000.
As for cross country mobility , even as late as 1944 that meant by foot. They got as much trucks as the germans, but those went in the
divisional service units , the infantry regiments still walked .

Originally Posted by zraver

The trucks also allowed the Soviets to move their artillery. From mounting rockets on them to towing the 122mm M30 howitzer. Without US trucks the Soviet artillery pool is limited to a tractors road speed of about 10mph with poor reliability.

the tip of the spear is on foot and cannot make 10 mph anyway.

**Mihais** · 14 Jul 12,, 06:40

Tank and motorized units made the deep operations.Ivan Walker comes later,to mop up remnants,secure flanks and dig trenches to set up a base for a new offensive.I see your point about the soviet made trucks,but there a few things.
1.A lot was lost in 1941 and 1942.
2.They're Russian trucks,not German or American and particularly those taken from the civilian economy were already quite beaten up.
3.Soviet army was larger and on average more motorized than its Axis opponents,particularly in the rear echelons.So it still needs a lot of trucks or does not function.Having Baku oilfields is good.

**Doktor** · 14 Jul 12,, 08:28

I have 2 questions:

1. Why there was a LL program for USSR?

2. Why the Soviets accepted the LL?

**Gun Boat** · 14 Jul 12,, 08:52

Ive tried to find an article that set out everything the soviets recieved from Lend Lease but have not been able to find it. I've cut and pasted this list from various sources on the net so be gentle if you don't agree!

Vehicles

Bren Carriers - 2336
M3 Halftracks - 900
M3A1 Scout Cars - 3092
M3A1 Stuart - 1233
Valentine - 3487
Churchill - 258
M3A3 Lee/Grant - 1200
Matilda - 832
M4A2 75mm Sherman - 1750
M4A2 76mm Sherman - 1850
Half Tracks - 820
Light Trucks - 151,000
Heavy Trucks - 200,000
Jeeps - 51,000
Tractors - 8070
Motorcycles - 32000
Locomotives - 2000
Freight Cars - 11000

*Im 100% sure that nearly every truck and jeep delivered came with a couple of sets of tyres as well - Ive seen photos of them but buggered if i know where to find them.

Aircraft

P-39 Airacobra single-engine fighters - 4719
P-40 single-engine fighters - 2397
P-47 - 195
Hurricane single-engine fighters - 2952
Spitfire single-engine fighters - 1331
A-20 twin-engine light attack bombers - 2908
B-25 twin-engine medium bombers - 862

*Same with the aircraft, they came with sets of tyres and all sorts of consumables

Artillery

37mm Anti-Tank 35
57mm Anti-Tank 375
37mm Anti-Aircraft 340
40mm Anti-Aircraft 5,400
90mm Anti-Aircraft 240

Ammunition And Explosives

317000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells. Half of Soviet production of 600000tons
103000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT
991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges

Other

2.3 million tons of steel
229000 tons of aluminium
2.6 million tons of gasolene (90% of the Hi octane fuel used by the Soviets)
3.8 million tons of food stuffs
56500 field telephones
600000 kilometers of copper wire for said phones
15 million pairs of army boots
400000 various machine tools
135000 Submachine guns

This list is pretty rough and I took the lowest number when I had multiple figures.

In the scheme of things it only works out at around 10% of what the soviets used but there were some real critical products that came by the way of Lend Lease which the Soviets were not in a position to produce themselves. Copper, High octane fuel,trucks, tyres and explosives are the stand out ones for me. Also they pretty much got an entire airforce home delivered.

The Russians only just scraped though on a number of big battles - remove LL equipment and supplies and they don't get over the line in my humble opinion.