Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Glantz is hardly an author to use to back up many things. Most people consider his books " written from the Soviet point of view ".

They are good reads and full of information but their slant is obvious.

I am not sure that "most people" do consider the books slanted. The west, for decades, had a "slant". And that was all about, well, the west. It has not been that long ago that Soviet archives were opened to western writers. Much has been learned, especially in the areas of operations and strategy. One big discovery has been that the Soviets did not constantly use human waves. The Russians did use those tactics, especially early in the war, but it did not take long until more sophisticated battle plans were being used. The west only knew of a war in Russia in an abstract sense. There was no real understanding of the space or numbers involved. But there was constant cheer-leading(and rightfully so) of what "our boys" are doing to win against the "Nazis". And when the war ended all the books about the war in Russia were written from the German point of view. And that point of view was slanted. The Germans wanted to prove to the world that the Russians were clumsy, stupid, wasteful...and Germany lost because of Mr. Frost or that "corporal".

The point is the West really had no idea that Russia was as much a sleeping giant as America was. And until recently, I too always thought in terms of "America won the war". America did win; totally against Japan. Against Germany, we won in France and Western Germany. And yes we helped speed up the Russian advance, but...

quote:

As Ambrose wrote in THE seminal: WHO REALLY WON THE WAR IN EUROPE? "Because of the pitiful state of education in America and Britain, westerners have the retarded idea that had aid not been given to Russia, Germany would have rolled all the way to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, a mere 8,600 kilometers from Berlin. But this was not possible. Sensible, intelligent people understand that Russia had the willpower and arms to stop the Nazi horde. The Soviet Union was so mighty that they only used 10% of their industrial capacity to build the machinery of war. Besides, less than 1% of all aid promised actually reached the Soviets".

There, no better authority than Ambrose.

quote:

Slaak, your PM box is full, probably cluttered by propaganda leaflets about the new wonderful german colonial houses around Velikie Luki

quote:

Ah, the S.A.I. 207. All wood construction, fast, well armed . . . if only Italy would've had one more year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: nate25

Parusski, is it possible that Ambrose was on a BPB binge when he wrote about only 1%
of LendLease aid reaching Russia?

I only ask because he was a well-known addict of the substance, and the figures I have of LL aid reaching Russia is 93% arrived, 7% lost.

What do you think? Possible?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

NEVER FEAR, VASSAL IS HERE!!!
www.vasalengine.org

quote:

Parusski believes less than 1% of LendLease ever reached Russia.

quote:

Parusski believes less than 1% of LendLease ever reached Russia.

quote:

How do we have time to play with you...given all the time we waste here. Plus I am now absorbed with CoH

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Ah, well I obviously missed the 'history'. If 1000 trucks were shipped to Russia, and 70 were lost, it doesn't mean that the 'delivery' is 93% - because the tonnage of ships needed to move the trucks, the fuel expended moving the trucks and ships, and then returning the ships for the next journey, the tonnage of ships lost and needing replacement must all be added to the 'expenditure' that moved the 930 trucks.

With all this considered a 'delivery rate' of 93% is obviously ludicrous, and 1% might be plausible.. is all.

quote:

Sort of like unemployment in the United States is "only" 8.2%

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Ah, well I obviously missed the 'history'. If 1000 trucks were shipped to Russia, and 70 were lost, it doesn't mean that the 'delivery' is 93% - because the tonnage of ships needed to move the trucks, the fuel expended moving the trucks and ships, and then returning the ships for the next journey, the tonnage of ships lost and needing replacement must all be added to the 'expenditure' that moved the 930 trucks.

With all this considered a 'delivery rate' of 93% is obviously ludicrous, and 1% might be plausible.. is all.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Lord Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

Sort of like unemployment in the United States is "only" 8.2%

Yeah, but add back the millions who have dropped outta the job market and we are looking at something close to 10.5%(Wall Street Journal)!!

Yes, this what I meant by "only".

Anywho, I am glad I cleared up the confusion over the delivery of 1,000 trucks to Russia.

Let's not forget SLAAK(ER)'s contribution. hehe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Course it's true. If materials that could deliver 100,000 trucks to the parking lot of the vehicle factory are consumed getting 930 to the end-user (probably close if you include all the fuel/transport/escorts/their fuel and losses etc) then the useful supply ratio is about 1%.

To the recipient 930 are received, out of 1000 expected, but the sender needs a far higher effort to get those vehicles delivered. One lost ship is hundreds/thousands of 'trucks', and a ship carrying trucks can't be used for anything else till it is back after the round trip, and needs fuel/crew/escort etc..

What were the merchant loss rates on the North Cape convoys? Escorts? We lost at least one Carrier up there. How many ships were lost to U-Boats.
Not saying there was any alternative, or that it was a bad choice... just that 1 truck costs a damn sight more than in peace time, or the cost of building that 1 truck.

(Mind you the trucks were useful, the 'tanks' we sent, plus assorted small-arms ~ less so though the quality did improve towards the end of the war - things that were useful also included AA guns, radios, radar and similar 'tech').

England expects that every man will do his duty. Lord Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Course it's true. If materials that could deliver 100,000 trucks to the parking lot of the vehicle factory are consumed getting 930 to the end-user (probably close if you include all the fuel/transport/escorts/their fuel and losses etc) then the useful supply ratio is about 1%.

To the recipient 930 are received, out of 1000 expected, but the sender needs a far higher effort to get those vehicles delivered. One lost ship is hundreds/thousands of 'trucks', and a ship carrying trucks can't be used for anything else till it is back after the round trip, and needs fuel/crew/escort etc..

What were the merchant loss rates on the North Cape convoys? Escorts? We lost at least one Carrier up there. How many ships were lost to U-Boats.
Not saying there was any alternative, or that it was a bad choice... just that 1 truck costs a damn sight more than in peace time, or the cost of building that 1 truck.

(Mind you the trucks were useful, the 'tanks' we sent, plus assorted small-arms ~ less so though the quality did improve towards the end of the war - things that were useful also included AA guns, radios, radar and similar 'tech').

Warspite1

Looks like we shall agree to disagree. I cannot understand the point, or even if it made sense to me, how you would even attempt to calculate a loss/delivered rate, factoring in not only ships/men lost en route, but now you are suggesting escorts AND transports - even if not lost as they are being used for supply to USSR purposes and not for something else

BTW what carrier did "we" lose?? I assume you mean American, but I can't think of one, and the British certainly didn't (unless my memory is fading in my frail dotage)....

quote:

ORIGINAL: nate25

Ah, the S.A.I. 207. All wood construction, fast, well armed . . . if only Italy would've had one more year.

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

quote:

ORIGINAL: nate25

Ah, the S.A.I. 207. All wood construction, fast, well armed . . . if only Italy would've had one more year.

An airplane made of wood? I never knew such a thing existed.