3 ms·
The weapon part of the US contribution is way overrated. The Soviets produced 157k airplanes, the US only gave them 11k (7%). US gave 7k tanks, Soviets produc
by dmix 3y ago
The weapon part of the US contribution is way overrated.
The Soviets produced 157k airplanes, the US only gave them 11k (7%).
US gave 7k tanks, Soviets produced 87,500 (8%).
The main contribution by the US was support vehicles like jeeps and trucks and fuel. Neither the aircraft or tanks were very notable beyond the very early years.
The Soviets largely did it on the own armour/aircraft wise. Which was why Hitler was so obsessed with invading in the first place. He knew unless they rushed to invade Russia could unleash it's massive capacity for production that'd they'd be impossible to invade on their own, or at a minimum be way harder to beat.
- fishtockos 3y ago> The main contribution by the US was support vehicles like jeeps and trucks and fuel Obviously, these are all absolutely critical. As is the aluminum, high-octane avgas, etc that the Soviets obtained via Lend-Lease
- WalterBright 3y agoAs the Ukraine-Russia war illustrates, supply chain (support vehicles) are critical.
- m2fkxy 3y agoyou overlook that those weapons were supplied at critical times, when the Soviet war machine had not ramped up yet. entire offensives were led with nearly only lend-lease kit.
- baybal2 3y ago[dead]
- BlueTemplar 3y agoAlso small compared to what the British got. But what matters more is how critical they were : the Nazis culminated in view of the Kremlin (also, notably, a couple of days before Pearl Harbor and the US officially joined the war).