During the war, US sub crews made "torpedo juice" by mixing torpedo fuel (180-proof grain alcohol) with pineapple juice. Apparently the Navy tried to end this by spiking the alcohol with some sort of unpleasant additive, but the boat crews figured out how to distill it out.
A piece from Foreign Policy on how Ukraine is soaking up a good chunk of money that was previously earmarked for humanitarian aid for other countries. As always, resources are a finite thing, and there's never enough to go around. The longer the conflict continues, the more money will be diverted to Ukraine, both for the war and then for the years-long project of rebuilding (which will be largely funded by the West).
US finalizing plans to send Patriot missile defense system to Ukraine
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/13/politics/us-patriot-missile-defense-system-ukraine/index.html
Very capable. Very expensive. Each missile...... 3 million.....
In reply to aircooled :
And the Ukrainians aren't paying for any of them, so they will fire them off at anything that moves. I certainly hope the rounds being sent are nearing the end of their storage life.
On an vaguely related (and deeply ironic) note, I'm currently reading Sean McMeekin's Stalin's War, which presents a well-supported and absolutely shocking account of how the US - and specifically the Roosevelt administration - basically threw the Soviets anything and everything they asked for, even if it undermined the supply to US forces. Worse, the Soviets weren't charged a cent for all of this material, while the British were charged, and even pushed to send some of their Lend-Lease goods on to the Soviets. In a sense, it's exactly the same dynamic as we see today - the US keeping an ally in the fight against an otherwise superior opponent - but at least Ukraine is nominally democratic, if corrupt, whereas the Soviet Union was known in 1941 to be a brutal totalitarian state.
02Pilot said:In reply to aircooled :
And the Ukrainians aren't paying for any of them, so they will fire them off at anything that moves. I certainly hope the rounds being sent are nearing the end of their storage life.
I would hope so, too. At the same time, if we are going to help foot the bill for repairing Ukrainian infrastructure, 3 mil a pop is still likely much cheaper than repairing/replacing whatever was hit.
02Pilot said:In reply to aircooled :
And the Ukrainians aren't paying for any of them, so they will fire them off at anything that moves. I certainly hope the rounds being sent are nearing the end of their storage life.
On an vaguely related (and deeply ironic) note, I'm currently reading Sean McMeekin's Stalin's War, which presents a well-supported and absolutely shocking account of how the US - and specifically the Roosevelt administration - basically threw the Soviets anything and everything they asked for, even if it undermined the supply to US forces. Worse, the Soviets weren't charged a cent for all of this material, while the British were charged, and even pushed to send some of their Lend-Lease goods on to the Soviets. In a sense, it's exactly the same dynamic as we see today - the US keeping an ally in the fight against an otherwise superior opponent - but at least Ukraine is nominally democratic, if corrupt, whereas the Soviet Union was known in 1941 to be a brutal totalitarian state.
You sure about that? U-boats sunk a few of the ships carrying gold from Murmansk and there were several companies that sought the "lost Soviet gold".
$220 Million in Gold Bullion was Recovered From HMS Edinburgh (warhistoryonline.com)
In reply to jmabarone :
Per McMeekin, these were comparatively token gestures, not payments, and were ended after the sinking of the HMS Edinburgh in May 1942 (p.401). There were no contracts (whereas the British had to complete contracts for everything), and the Soviets were given access to the US military requisitions system, so they could make their requests directly via the embassy in Washington. The first protocol in June 41 was a credit line of a billion dollars, and this was extended to two billion when they blew through the initial amount. This continued, all with no discussion of payment for any of it.
Stalin's War is an astonishing book, and I say that having read probably two hundred books on the Second World War. It draws from an immense array of sources, and is very well-documented, so this is solid historical research, not the work of some crank fringe theorist.
Stalin asked for a lot of things we refused to give them, too, like some of our advanced bombers and fighters. They loved the hell out of some of the fighters we sent that we and other allies hated, too. At work and waiting for an A/C evac so can't get cites right now.
Most of what we sent, IIRC, was infrastructure - trains, trucks ("Studebekkers"), machinery. They had a sudden need to move their industrial centers much further east, after all.
02Pilot said:In reply to jmabarone :
Per McMeekin, these were comparatively token gestures, not payments, and were ended after the sinking of the HMS Edinburgh in May 1942 (p.401). There were no contracts (whereas the British had to complete contracts for everything), and the Soviets were given access to the US military requisitions system, so they could make their requests directly via the embassy in Washington. The first protocol in June 41 was a credit line of a billion dollars, and this was extended to two billion when they blew through the initial amount. This continued, all with no discussion of payment for any of it.
Stalin's War is an astonishing book, and I say that having read probably two hundred books on the Second World War. It draws from an immense array of sources, and is very well-documented, so this is solid historical research, not the work of some crank fringe theorist.
*themoreyouknow Interesting, I'll have to add that book to my list.
I know we are (slightly) OT but I saw an analysis of lend-lease aircraft used by the USSR. Openly, they were said to be inferior to domestic designs, but within secret documents, they were highly praised. The Soviets knew they couldn't say that their "new" enemy's tech was so helpful in the great patriotic war.
jmabarone said:I know we are (slightly) OT but I saw an analysis of lend-lease aircraft used by the USSR. Openly, they were said to be inferior to domestic designs, but within secret documents, they were highly praised. The Soviets knew they couldn't say that their "new" enemy's tech was so helpful in the great patriotic war.
For example the US wouldn't send them B-29s. They got ahold of a couple that made emergency landings (they were technically neutral in the war with Japan), and made direct copies of them as the "Tu-4". Supposedly those copies were so faithful that they even had copies of the metal patches used to repair previous damage to the aircraft they'd copied.
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
They had to get special permission to use certain Soviet equipment like parachutes. Also IIRC they were slightly heavier because Soviet sheetmetal gauges ran a little thicker.
When Stalin said to do something, you assumed his intentions at your own peril. He say "copy these planes", you COPY the plane.
02Pilot said:In reply to aircooled :
And the Ukrainians aren't paying for any of them, so they will fire them off at anything that moves. I certainly hope the rounds being sent are nearing the end of their storage life.
On an vaguely related (and deeply ironic) note, I'm currently reading Sean McMeekin's Stalin's War, which presents a well-supported and absolutely shocking account of how the US - and specifically the Roosevelt administration - basically threw the Soviets anything and everything they asked for, even if it undermined the supply to US forces. Worse, the Soviets weren't charged a cent for all of this material, while the British were charged, and even pushed to send some of their Lend-Lease goods on to the Soviets. In a sense, it's exactly the same dynamic as we see today - the US keeping an ally in the fight against an otherwise superior opponent - but at least Ukraine is nominally democratic, if corrupt, whereas the Soviet Union was known in 1941 to be a brutal totalitarian state.
Not only that, but the Soviets and Russian essentially refuse too acknowledge it was any help to them. Instead they complain how the western allies delayed their invasion of France as a way to get more Russians killed and how Russia essentially "won" WWII (because they took the most casualties).
I do hope Ukraine recovers to become an economic power... and they REMEMBER who helped them.... and maybe pay them back?
aircooled said:Not only that, but the Soviets and Russian essentially refuse too acknowledge it was any help to them. Instead they complain how the western allies delayed their invasion of France as a way to get more Russians killed and how Russia essentially "won" WWII (because they took the most casualties).
American steel, British intelligence, and Soviet blood. It's an oversimplification, but there's a good amount of truth to it.
aircooled said:Not only that, but the Soviets and Russian essentially refuse too acknowledge it was any help to them. Instead they complain how the western allies delayed their invasion of France as a way to get more Russians killed and how Russia essentially "won" WWII (because they took the most casualties).
There is a recent push in the Russian sphere to emphasize these old propaganda statements and reinforce that Russia is the true hero against the Nazis/evil/west/capitalism/ect. This seems to be so they can gain sway in propaganda that their current war is also for the freedom and safety of Russia/Europe/World/whatever, and that is why they are again fighting alone (for their perceived greater good, and to minimize internal criticize).
I have wondered if anyone has simulated the Eastern Front on a computer to see how things might have gone without Lend Lease. You'd have to run it about 10,000 times to get results with any validity, but it would be interesting, nevertheless.
Now that I think about it, that would be a hell of a premise for a YT/Network TV show...
stroker said:I have wondered if anyone has simulated the Eastern Front on a computer to see how things might have gone without Lend Lease. You'd have to run it about 10,000 times to get results with any validity, but it would be interesting, nevertheless.
I did it a bunch of times in 1982 on my Atari 1200XL:
In reply to stroker :
The key period is late 41 to the fall/winter of 42. Once the Germans take the bait and move into Stalingrad, things start to turn. A simulation run from 22 June 1941 to mid-1943 would be more than adequate to address the question. I'm sure the software exists, but I doubt it's out there for consumers.
McMeekin does talk quite a bit about the importance of Lend-lease, and the Soviets downplaying it.
Saw something unconfirmed that Putin has told close advisers he is okay with up to a half million soldiers killed in the "special military operation". I'm guessing Russian citizens might disagree a bit.
When I was growing up, everybody had short wave radios. I used to listen to lots of people talking in some foreign language. Doesn't anyone in Russia have one anymore or where they all confiscated? I remember Radio Free Europe, I would think that at least some Russians are getting truthful information?
eastsideTim said:Saw something unconfirmed that Putin has told close advisers he is okay with up to a half million soldiers killed in the "special military operation". I'm guessing Russian citizens might disagree a bit.
Dude sounds like baby Stalin. At this point can he even get a half-million conscripts? I don't think the 300,000 he "mobilized" ever came to fruition.
02Pilot said:In reply to stroker :
The key period is late 41 to the fall/winter of 42. Once the Germans take the bait and move into Stalingrad, things start to turn. A simulation run from 22 June 1941 to mid-1943 would be more than adequate to address the question. I'm sure the software exists, but I doubt it's out there for consumers.
McMeekin does talk quite a bit about the importance of Lend-lease, and the Soviets downplaying it.
Some guy named Zhukov, probably a mailman or gofer or something, said that were it not for Lend-Lease, the USSR would not have made it past 1943.
Note that Zhukov was a very rare individual: he was powerful politically, but Stalin trusted him enough to let him live. They even had arguments 
Just a guess, but I would suspect Russia would still have eventually fought off the Germans without Lend-Lease (or steal) but it would have taken a LOT longer and they would have taken a lot more casualties. I think it would have specifically hurt their ability to counter attack (e.g. not be able to turn things after Stalingrad). Defensive fighting will not take nearly as many resources. You could say that most of the stuff the US sent was mostly useful for attack (attacks of course are an integral part of an effective defense).
The question would be: what would it take for WWII Russia to actually collapse? If the Germans took Moscow, would they surrender?
In reply to aircooled :
Had Germany been able to seize the industrial base before it moved, that would have gone a long way to end it quick. For sure, it wasn't about the number who died- it would have only been if the leadership would be totally taken down- which would have only happened without any way to arm themselves. Moscow matters as much as DC matters- not much at all as a specific location. It was Stalin and the rest of the leadership that mattered.
It would have also helped a MASSIVE amount had Germany not been murdering people like they were. The amount of resources they used just to do that really hurt the battle in russia- between the trains, weapons, and people dedicated to murder people- that took so very much away. I can't say it would have actually turned the tide, but it would have made the russian position a whole lot worse.
Otherwise, there was no way Germany wins. As soon as the attack began, it was just a matter of time.
In reply to alfadriver :
Had Germany held off on attacking russia until they had England under control and unable to use it as a launching pad they might have had a chance. They were very successful on a single front. But they were fighting in Africa, the eastern front with the USSR and dealing with constant bombing runs from england.
In reply to bobzilla :
Not sure if I agree with that. England did *some* damage, but given their resources, they were not all that big of a problem- which is why the invasion was abandoned so easily after losing the Battle of Britian. North Africa was all a Musolini ego trip to remake the Roman Empire- and them getting Germany to get involved was a interesting.
Still, even with all of those resources, I really don't see them defeating the Soviet Union. Bear in mind, just occupying land does not mean you can just ignore it- what happened in the Balkans would surely have happened in England, too- keeping Germany just as tied up as they ended up being.
One glaring thing that happened during the invastion is that they totally dismissed the Soviet ability to ruin their own resources to prevent Germany from using them- between the oil fields and some dams- the Soviets really prevented the Germans of using the resources they captured. Let alone totally ignoring the realities of running a war- the lack of winter gear in '41 and the lack of real rail network support over the entire front.
And they still would have had to take the Soviet leadership as opposed to just Moscow. They moved so much east to make *stuff* that it would have been a few more years of war to get there. Which Germany really didn't have the people or resources to sustain that long of a war of attrition against the Soviets.
You'll need to log in to post.
