Could the Russians be able to beat the Germans without the American lend lease programme?

Question

I understand that the Americans were supplying huge number of trucks etc to the Russians and I am asking with respect to the supply point of view :)

Answer 1

Oscar Himpflewitz's answer is just perfect.

1. Lend-lease was minimal at the first, the most crucial part of the war.
2. Overall US supplies were about 6% of total Soviet production.
3. American weaponry were inferior to the Soviet-built. You may compare puny "Sherman" tanks with T-34. Shermans burned like candles, said my history teacher, a tank commander at Kursk battle.
4. Veterans valued well Studebaker trucks and canned meat (they called it "Second front").

Answer 2

The bulk of US assistance came in the form of food, raw materials, machinery and industrial equipment. Lend-Lease allowed Soviet factories to concentrate on the large-scale production of weapons of Soviet design, rather than having to produce other forms of equipment, The United States supplied 409, 500 vehicles (mostly the famous Studebaker truck), whilst the Soviet Union manufactured just 265, 000 trucks of their own design.

In addition 43% of Soviet tyres came fom America, and 56% of rails for the Soviet railway system. America also supplied 1, 900 locomotives (the Soviet Union manufactured just 92 throughout the war). Without Lend-Lease Soviet transportation would not have been able to cope.

Although the Soviet Union was plentifully endowed with Crude-Oil deposits, the war severly disrupted the oil-refining installations. The United States therefore supplied 58% of high octane fuel needed for aircraft and approximately 33% of Soviet High Explosives.

In addition the United States supplied 80% of all copper, and 328, 000 tonnes of aluminium (Soviet production amounted to 283, 000 tonnes, mostly produced during the closing months of the war).

Enough canned food was supplied to ensure that every Soviet Soldier could obtain one good meal per day (although through pilfering it didn't always reach its intended target).

Relatively little of the Lend-Lease supplies were actually 'finished' weapons such as guns, tanks and planes. Estimates put the total as being of less than 4% of all Military weaponry, and many of these items were considered as second-rate by the Soviets.

Answer 3

I doubt it. Look how far the Germans got and the Russians had been getting material. Without the US aid, the Germans would have made it to the Caucasus oil fields. If that had happened, it would be game over. The Russians wouldn't have been able to supply the vast army that was forming in the East.

The Germans were very close to defeating the Russians with US help. Without it, I believe the Germans would have forced the Soviets to plead for some kind of secondary status in the Third Reich. That is not to say the Soviets would keep their agreement. They probably would have revolted not too long after, a few years or so. But in the short term, the Germans would have won. Holding onto what they won is a different matter.

Answer 4

It is hard to say whether or not they would have won without lend lease supply equipment. After all, as we used to say in the service, amateurs practice tactics, but professionals study logistics.

We can debate the theme of your question endlessley, but I think we could agree that lend lease logistical support, especially in the area of tactical supply trucks, locomotives, and other transportation equipment was critical to the Soviet war effort.

I hate to quote from Wikipedia, but in this instance, it is useful. "Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back on production of nonessentials severely, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military/industrial economy.

For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that only about 92 locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[5] US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical.

Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the US into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program and its significance in aiding the Allied war effort when he declared war on the US on 11 December 1941."

I have cited a Russian source for your review as well.
Regards.

Answer 5

It probably would have ended up as a stalemate, similar to the situation in France during WW1, prior to the U.S. intervention.
Germany could not win so long as it was fighting on two fronts (three if you count Africa), and the USSR could not logistically support all the manpower necessary to win outright.
The Russian battle plan on any front was to attack everywhere at once, and then send their reinforcements to wherever they had broken through.
The German approach was much more surgical. They would focus their attack on a single point, and bust it open. As a result, the Germans were able to do more with less, and that would have offset the Russians overwhelming numerical advantage.
It's the old "Quantity versus Quality" arguement. Stalin, being a staunch supporter of maximum manpower, was quoted defending his strategy of simply overwhelming the technologically superior Germans by saying "Yes, but quantity has a quality all it's own."

Answer 6

the russians would have eventually won through sheer mass of numbers. the russians outnumbered the germans, yet lacked the technology of the germans. the germans attacking on the eastern fron twas a major flaw in their war plan. germany didn't have enough people and resources to fight both fronts. and though they showed initial gains, the russians began to beat them with numbers. and the russians knew what fighting in winter really entailed.

Answer 7

There is a huge misconception about Russian military might, if the Americans werent involved, Germany would have annihilated them without mercy. Russia was still reeling from the embarrassment of losing to the Japanese in 1905. Russia can't even invade Afghanistan which shows you what the Russians are capable of achieving.

Answer 8

no way, the germans have stayed an economic superpower since the eighties, the russians never really have had a strong economic system and they won't until they get behind capitalism. that was the real reason we beat them, we were able to afford to maintain our nuclear weapons and military and they weren't.

Answer 9

No country could win a war without U.S. involvment. We Americans supplied airplanes that I know of and possibly many other war supplies.

Answer 10

no i dont think that the Russians could have won because with out are help they would have ran out of resources