Soviet Union in World War 2

[symtoms_of_humanity]

In World War 2, I hate to say it, but I think the Soviets would have lost World War 2 with out the help of the U.S., becuase the U.S. gave the Soviets so much help with weapons, food, and tanks. If that would have happend I think that Germany would have won the war, becuase the U.S. and Canada would not have been able to hold out against Germany with the vast oil fields of Russia. (This in no way is supposed to demean the solders of the Soviet Union, I just think they were under-equiped, and poorly trained) Please give your thoughts on this.

[The_Titoist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:13 AM
In World War 2, I hate to say it, but I think the Soviets would have lost World War 2 with out the help of the U.S., becuase the U.S. gave the Soviets so much help with weapons, food, and tanks. If that would have happend I think that Germany would have won the war, becuase the U.S. and Canada would not have been able to hold out against Germany with the vast oil fields of Russia. (This in no way is supposed to demean the solders of the Soviet Union, I just think they were under-equiped, and poorly trained) Please give your thoughts on this.
I dont agree with that. When the Nazi's invaded Russia, Stalin ordered all citizens to burn everything in their paths to prevent the Nazis from getting an advantage and then when they came close to Moscow, they were able to drive back the Nazi's because of the pure luck they had with the weather. Nazi tanks and machinery would not work in sub-freezing temperatures... but the Russains already had adapted to it. The victory of the Soviet Union over Germany was also due to Stalins results from the "Five-year Plan". In the plan, the Russain economy was able to reach the same level as the US, and when Germans began their assult on USSR, Stalin, within a matter of 3 days, was able to turn all the tractor factories into munition and tank factories. All this combined was able to drive back the Germans, without US assisstance. The only time US assisstance was used in Russia was during the famine of 1921. The only thing that the US did to help Russia was with Britain, Yugoslavia, France and Africa, was able to open up a second front. So Hitler now had to fight on two fronts... and his forces were stretched thin allowing Allied victory.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

So you deny that the U.S. sent any weapons or food to the Soviet Union?

[The_Titoist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:30 AM
So you deny that the U.S. sent any weapons or food to the Soviet Union?
Not necessarily. In 1939 Congress passed a second bill of neutrality. This bill would prevent the US from sending military supplies to any country involved in the war. To overcome this law, the US was able to send only materials. "Beginning in the summer of 1941, the United States contributed the following materials to the USSR: 2,680,000 tons of steel 170,400 tons of aluminum 29,400 tons of tin 240,000 tons of copper, 330,000 telephone sets and some one million miles of cable 2,000 radar sets 5,000 radio receivers 900,000 tons of projectiles and explosives 3,786,000 tires 49,000 tons of leather 18 million pairs of shoes more than six million tons of provisions three million tons of gasoline 900,000 tons of chemical products and 700,000 trucks." But most of this was meant for the assisstance of the USSR in surpressing Japanese imperialism. During WW2, Germany was not a threat to the US as much as Japan was. The US aid that went to the USSR was basically to stop Japanese expansion in China and its province of Manchuria. Barely any of these supplies made it to the front lines of the west... like in Stalingrad. In my conclusion, yes the US did send aid to the USSR but not to help the fight against Germany, but to help stop Japan. This became incredibly usefull when the US entered the war.

As well, the US supplied the most aid to Britain in the west, because US ships faced many dangers even attempting to reach Russias Western borders.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:13 PM
In World War 2, I hate to say it, but I think the Soviets would have lost World War 2 with out the help of the U.S., becuase the U.S. gave the Soviets so much help with weapons, food, and tanks.
That's probably an overstatement. The tide of the war turned in favor of the USSR at the time of Stalingrad in 1942. By that point the U.S., and lend-lease aid, were not yet a major factor in the war.

On the other hand, the Red Army's rapid advances in 1943-45 certainly did owe a lot to US aid. As well as to the diversion of German troops to the Western, North Africa, and Italian fronts - though those never consumed nearly the amount of German resources and men as the Eastern Front.

Without U.S. involvement, more likely the war would have ended in a statemate. But a stalemate which left the Third Reich in control of most of Europe, with its industry and resources.....

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:14 AM
Without U.S. involvement, more likely the war would have ended in a statemate. But a stalemate which left the Third Reich in control of most of Europe, with its industry and resources.....
I don't think it would go quite so far. By the time of the Red Army offensive in Poland (which is where you can really see the worth of US aid) the Germans had been broken. There was never any real question of the outcome of the war by '44. Without US supplies and jeeps I suspect that the only real difference would be that the Allies would've been the ones to take Berlin.

[sovietsniper]

American assistance is essencall
Of the USSR, the USA supplied:

80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft

The list includes a high percentage of the high grade steel, communications
cable, canned foods of all types, medical supplies, and virtually every modern
machine tool used by Soviet industry. Not to mention the "know-how required to
use and maintain this equipment.

Don't let the low percentage of tanks and planes fool you. The steel, fuel etc to manufacture those items in Rusian factories were provided by the US. The decision was made to shift Soviet production to tanks and plans almost exclusively only because nearly everything else was being supplied by the US.

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."
Zhukov(yes marshall zhukov,leader of the red army and victor at stalingrad,kursk and berlin said that) quoted from :

The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV

So as you can see not only did the americans allow the soviets to only build tanks and planes, they even gave them the materialys to do that!

[Revolution67]

So keeping in view of the above stated facts, the role of Soviet Union in defeating Nazi Germany is rather over-blown and an over-stated myth?

[sovietsniper]

No, the red army was powerfull as was the soviet union on whole. It wasnt strong anouth to fight the germans alone. No one exept the (AND I HATE SAYING THIS) U.S

[Led Zeppelin]

It wasnt strong anouth to fight the germans alone. No one exept the (AND I HATE SAYING THIS) U.S

That's utter nonsense, the US without Soviet aid would have done worse than the USSR without US aid, that's for sure.

And no, the US did not "win the war", they entered it while it was already won basically, I doubt those numbers are true btw, I would like a source for them.

And even if they were true, you seem to not recognize the importance of the infantry and partisans.

[violencia.Proletariat]

tanks? the ussr built their own tanks, the t-34. and they were MUCH better than allied sherman pos's.

[sovietsniper]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 25 2005, 04:28 PM


That's utter nonsense, the US without Soviet aid would have done worse than the USSR without US aid, that's for sure.

And no, the US did not "win the war", they entered it while it was already won basically,
The U.S.A made the biggest conterbuthion in the war.
They had the most powerfull fleet in the world,they had a huglly powerfull airforce(both tactitlly and stratigiccy), they had a powerfull and experianced paratrooper force, and last but certanlly not least they had the A-BOMB. How many of these things did the soviets have? NONE.
The U.S also fought a 2 front war unlike the soviets. The japanese tied down most of the U.S fleet yet they still maneged to win the adlantic. Could the soviets have fought a 2 front war against 2 very strong enemys while at the same giving hugh sums of aid to others. NO
Would you like me to go on?

[sovietsniper]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:31 PM
tanks? the ussr built their own tanks, the t-34. and they were MUCH better than allied sherman pos's.
The U.S.S.R used large amounts of shermans, american tanks made up nearly 10 per cent of there tank force. Also where did the steel for the t-34s come from?

[Led Zeppelin]

They had the most powerfull fleet in the world

So?

World war 2 was mostly a land based war.


they had a huglly powerfull airforce(both tactitlly and stratigiccy),

So did the USSR.


they had a powerfull and experianced paratrooper force

Used only when the Germans were on full retreat on the eastern front.


and last but certanlly not least they had the A-BOMB.

Used when the war was practically over.


How many of these things did the soviets have?

They had all of them, except for the "A-BOMB".


Could the soviets have fought a 2 front war against 2 very strong enemys while at the same giving hugh sums of aid to others. NO


Nazi-Germany also fought a 2 front war, what's your point?

It's the intensity of the war on the front in question which matters, not the amount of fronts.


Would you like me to go on?

No, I've had enough of your "patriotism".


The U.S.S.R used large amounts of shermans, american tanks made up nearly 10 per cent of there tank force. Also where did the steel for the t-34s come from?

So I take it that you have no source for those numbers you posted?

I thought so.

[sovietsniper]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 25 2005, 04:28 PM

they entered it while it was already won basically,


The war in 1941 was in no way won. Without american aid the british could have been starved to death. If this had of happened then rommel could have taking suez canal, oilfeilds in middel east, attact soviet union from the south. This would be VERY bad for the allies

There is also the possibility of a japanese attack on siberia. The attack would most proberby fail but could tie down signifacent divisions that historically saved moscow.

[Led Zeppelin]

I meant "entered" in the literal meaning of the word, not when they declared war on Japan and Germany.

[sovietsniper]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 25 2005, 04:47 PM

They had the most powerfull fleet in the world

So?

World war 2 was mostly a land based war.


they had a huglly powerfull airforce(both tactitlly and stratigiccy),

So did the USSR.


they had a powerfull and experianced paratrooper force

Used only when the Germans were on full retreat on the eastern front.


and last but certanlly not least they had the A-BOMB.

Used when the war was practically over.


How many of these things did the soviets have?

They had all of them, except for the "A-BOMB".


Could the soviets have fought a 2 front war against 2 very strong enemys while at the same giving hugh sums of aid to others. NO


Nazi-Germany also fought a 2 front war, what's your point?

It's the intensity of the war on the front in question which matters, not the amount of fronts.


Would you like me to go on?

No, I've had enough of your "patriotism".


The U.S.S.R used large amounts of shermans, american tanks made up nearly 10 per cent of there tank force. Also where did the steel for the t-34s come from?

So I take it that you have no source for those numbers you posted?

I thought so.
1, The war wasnt soley based on land. The pacific and adlantic were major theaters of operathions
2, I dont remember eny evidence of large-scale long-range soviet boming campains
3, They were running from a army that used american made eqipment or were made from american resources.
4, The war was over because of both the A-BOMB and american air-power. Without these the japenese could have dragged it on into 1946
5, no they didnt. The soviet air-force was good for low alltidude fighters and fighter-bomers. nouthing more. The soviet fleet was pathetic. The soviets never had a large scale paratroop drop into combat.
6,My point is that america could deal with it, the soviets coudnt.
7,im not american
8,in finding them now

[Led Zeppelin]

8,in finding them now

This was the only point you made which could be true, and I hope you are finding them now.

Basically your entire argument is based on those numbers, so if you can't source them you have nothing, I wonder where you got them from in the first place.

[sovietsniper]

I found them on a very reliable forum and iv asked for a source. the topic is here (http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3093)

[sovietsniper]

There is also a set of figures Here (http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html) which consite of
Aircraft - 7.411 (CW) + 14.795 (US) = 22.206
Automotive:
--- 1.5 ton trucks 151.053 (US)
--- 2.5 ton trucks 200.662 (US)
--- Willys Jeeps 77.972 (US)
Bren Gun Carriers - 2.560 (CW)
Boots - 15 million pairs (US)
Communications equipment:
--- Field phones - 380.135 (US)
--- Radios - 40.000 (US)
--- Telephone cable - 1.25 million miles (US)
Cotton cloth - 107 million square yards (US)
Foodstuffs - 4.5 million tons (US)
Leather - 49.000 tons (US)
Motorcycles - 35.170 (US)
Locomotives - 1.981 units (US)
Rolling stock - 11.155 units (US)
Tanks - 5.218 (CW) + 7.537 (US) = 12.755
Tractors - 8.701 (US)
Trucks - 4.020 (CW) + 357.883 (US) = 361.903

[Led Zeppelin]

I found them on a very reliable forum and iv asked for a source. the topic is here


So basically you quoted someone who posted those numbers without a source, smart move there buddy.

Oh, and the above numbers are worthless when compared to the first set of numbers you posted.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

The war was no over when the U.S. entered, the only major thing that happend was Stalingrad, and a month or so after the Germans got defeated the U.S. helped invade North Africa, Sicily, and Italy, with out the U.S. and British taking those the Red Army would have had alot of work to do, and yes they opend up a two front war which helped, but the U.S. as SovietSniper said had to deal with a two front war, in europe and the pacfic, and Japan had troops that fought to the death and every island. As you said the war was mostly a land war, in Europe, the Jap. front was mostly sea or air(depending on how you see aircraft carries as air or sea). The death toll on the eastern front was also so very high becuase neither side took or kept many prisoners for long, the Germans where brutal to the russians, so in return the russians were brutal.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:10 AM
American assistance is essencall
Of the USSR, the USA supplied:

80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft
Aside from your lack of source, your problem is:

You don't say when this assistance was delivered.

I've seen figures on that, and it didn't begin on a large scale until after Stalingrad.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by Severian+Nov 25 2005, 06:03 PM--> (Severian @ Nov 25 2005, 06:03 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 09:10 AM
American assistance is essencall
Of the USSR, the USA supplied:

80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft
Aside from your lack of source, your problem is:

You don't say when this assistance was delivered.

I've seen figures on that, and it didn't begin on a large scale until after Stalingrad. [/b]
So you belive just because the Soviets won Stalingrad it means the germans were broken, without the U.S. aid the Soviets would not have been able to drive the Germans all the way into Berlin and crush them, they may have had a small offensive but been driven back without the aid of the U.S., and the solders in Stalingrad yes they had a tremoundous victory, but they were very under-equiped and could not have won the rest of the war like that had done in Stalingrad, once winter faded it would have been disatrous for the Red Army as it had been before winter, without the aid given

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:13 PM
So you belive just because the Soviets won Stalingrad it means the germans were broken, without the U.S. aid the Soviets would not have been able to drive the Germans all the way into Berlin and crush them,
As I said originally:
On the other hand, the Red Army's rapid advances in 1943-45 certainly did owe a lot to US aid. As well as to the diversion of German troops to the Western, North Africa, and Italian fronts - though those never consumed nearly the amount of German resources and men as the Eastern Front.

Without U.S. involvement, more likely the war would have ended in a statemate. But a stalemate which left the Third Reich in control of most of Europe, with its industry and resources.....


they may have had a small offensive but been driven back without the aid of the U.S., and the solders in Stalingrad yes they had a tremoundous victory, but they were very under-equiped and could not have won the rest of the war like that had done in Stalingrad, once winter faded it would have been disatrous for the Red Army as it had been before winter, without the aid given

Operation Uranus was actually launched in November, not "winter". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus)

The decisive thing was not "the soldiers in Stalingrad". It was the pincer operation with the tank armies on the steppe, which encircled and destroyed the German forces in Stalingrad.

Exactly the kind of thing the Wehrmacht was used to doing to other people.

The tide of the war turned after Stalingrad; the Red Army had learned to play the Wehrmacht's game...better than they did.

[Severian]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Nov 25 2005, 05:48 AM--> (ComradeOm @ Nov 25 2005, 05:48 AM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 04:14 AM
Without U.S. involvement, more likely the war would have ended in a statemate. But a stalemate which left the Third Reich in control of most of Europe, with its industry and resources.....
I don't think it would go quite so far. By the time of the Red Army offensive in Poland (which is where you can really see the worth of US aid) the Germans had been broken. There was never any real question of the outcome of the war by '44. Without US supplies and jeeps I suspect that the only real difference would be that the Allies would've been the ones to take Berlin. [/b]
I meant, if the US didn't get involved at all...you seem to be saying, if they got involved, and opened a Western Front, but didn't send aid to the USSR.

You may have a point - partly it probably depends on how much aid the USSR was getting in 1943. I can't find the figures right now and am going on memory.

But in any case the USSR - and China, and the revolutionary movement in the colonies - benefited from the falling out among the imperialist thieves.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:13 PM
I meant, if the US didn't get involved at all...you seem to be saying, if they got involved, and opened a Western Front, but didn't send aid to the USSR.

You may have a point - partly it probably depends on how much aid the USSR was getting in 1943. I can't find the figures right now and am going on memory.
I've no idea how many supplies, iron etc that the Soviets got. What I do know its that the US's real worth came in supplying the trucks, jeeps and the logistical equipment that allowed the Russians to practice the "24 hour offensive" in driving across Poland.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

I think the allied victory over the nazis was very much a joint effort and cant be put down to a single nation, however the part each country played in defeating the nazi war machine can be evaluated, and if it is looked at from this perspective, it was definitely the USSR that played the crucial role in defeating the nazis.

80% of all Wehrmacht casualties were sustained on the Western front, and remember: the allied landings took place only in late 1944 - a year before the war finished. So the argument that Germany fought on two fronts cannot be used for most of the war. And it was in the years leading up to 1944 that the red army had its decisive victories - e.g. the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk, the liberation of Leningrad and the Belorussian offensive.

Although the US aid did contribute to the victory, it was not a decisive factor. Without it, the war on the Eastern Front would have dragged on longer and the mobility the Red Army had in 1943 would not have been as widely available as it was.

It is likely that the German bombing of Britain would have intensified and there is a high possibility they could have develoed the atomib bomb and the means to deliver it across large distances.

[Janus]

I know that the US did supply material to the USSR during World War II through Archangel but I never thought that in came in amounts that were crucial to the USSR. Stalin moved much of his industry further east in order to protect them from the German advance. The Soviets won more through the dedication of the people rather than foreign support. After all, the US was occupied with the war in the Pacific and supplying Great Britain rather than helping out the Soviet Union.

[Correa]

The Nation that had the biggest role in defeating the Germans was Germany itself. 2nd place goes to the Russians, when the KGB assured Stalin that the Japanese were not going to invade from the east Stalin moved all his fresh winter trained Siberian troops to Russia's western front. The American's kicked the Germans while they were down that's all. America's real war was with the Japs. I'm convinced that without American intervention in the European thearter the Soviets would have "Liberated" Bourdeux! If you want to play this out I would suggest Hearts of Iron II. Its a great WWII strategy game, you can even change your government as you go, make alliances with any country. Shit you could play as Peru if you'd like and try to join the Cominterm.

[Revolution67]

There is a good book available, on the decisive role played by the Soviet Red Army during the World War II. I hope it would clear many a misconceptions about Soviet Red Army and their military upperhand.

When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies)

by David M. Glantz, Jonathan M. House

[pcb]

material help from US did help but lets not forget without Hilter turning his attention to USSR in 1940 to prep for operation BARBAROSSA 1941 Britain would have fallen. The US would have had to find another way in which to launch an invasion, but this would have to wait for 7 Dec 41 (Pearl Harbour).
I doubt very much that the casualties sutained by the USSR could have been matched by the USA. USSR had 2 front lets not forget Japan in China.
US government policy during 2 world wars had been wanting, until the realisation that Imperialism by Prussians and Fascism was far greater threat than communism.

1st World War started 1914 USA turned up 1917 war ended 1918.
2nd World War started 1939 USA turned up 1941 war ended 1945.

[sovietsniper]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:28 AM
USSR had 2 front lets not forget Japan in China.

The USSR didnt have 2 fronts. In 1939 and after berlin id had relitivlly small battles against the japinese. The secound happened after the drooping of the A-bomb i belive.

[KGB5097]

I honestly belive that if the Soviets hadn't got involved in the war, the Fascists would have taken the rest of Europe and held America at bay...

Bad timing on Hitlers part cost the Nazis their war.....

Fact is that the Eastern front allowed for a weakening of the entire fascist nation, 2 MAJOR fronts simpally couldn't be supported, and neither front could be abandoned....

Although the war would've been over ALOT faster if the USA, UK and SU had put alittle more trust in eachother as allies, Instead they turned the last 2 years of the war into a contest on who would control Europe after the war was over...

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:42 AM
There is a good book available, on the decisive role played by the Soviet Red Army during the World War II. I hope it would clear many a misconceptions about Soviet Red Army and their military upperhand.

When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies)

by David M. Glantz, Jonathan M. House
I haven't read that one, but Glantz is usually pretty good. Brings out a lot of data from the former USSR which has not been previously written about.

Traditionally, most of the information about the Eastern Front available in the West...has been from ex-Wehrmacht people. Creates a one-sided image.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:45 PM
I honestly belive that if the Soviets hadn't got involved in the war, the Fascists would have taken the rest of Europe and held America at bay...

Bad timing on Hitlers part cost the Nazis their war.....

Fact is that the Eastern front allowed for a weakening of the entire fascist nation, 2 MAJOR fronts simpally couldn't be supported, and neither front could be abandoned....
But Hitler needed to invade the USSR in order to keep his war machine running. He hoped to knock the Soviet Union out of the war early, and was encouraged by the Soviet Union's relatively bad display in the Winter War against Finland.

So I don't think Hitler could have afforded to hold the US at bay by simply relying on the German economy alone. A major reason behind Barbarossa was the need for raw materials, not just ideological reasons.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

In the first part of the war, the Red Army's weaponry was a mixed success. It had excellent artillery, but it did not have enough trucks to manoeuvre and supply it; as a result, much of it was captured by the Germans (who valued it highly). Its T-34 tanks were the best in the world, yet most of the armour was represented by hopelessly outdated models; likewise, the same supply problem handicapped even the formations equipped with the most modern tanks. Air Force was generally inferior against the Germans. The quick advance of the Germans into the Soviet territory made re-enforcements difficult, if not impossible, since much of the military industry was in the west of the country. Until the industry was re-established in the East, the Red Army had to rely on improvised weapons and partly on the British and American supplies. For example, it employed Sherman tanks (ca. 4100), Valentine Tanks (ca. 3700), M3A1 Stuart (ca. 1700), M17 MGMC (ca. 1000), Bren Carriers (more than 2500), Matilda IIA (ca. 1100) as well as M3A3 Lee and M3A5 Grant tanks, even though they were all inferior to the T-34 or KV-1. On the other hand, the red aviation received several thousand modern planes that were on par or better than the Soviet aircraft; these included various models of P-39 Airacobra fighters (almost 5000), Hawker Hurricane (3000), A-20 Havoc medium bombers (3000), P63 KingCobra (ca. 2400), P40 TomaHawk and P40 KittyHawk (2130), Supermarine Spitfire (ca. 1350). Finally, the Red Army received no less than 9600 pieces of various anti-tank and anti-air guns, as well as millions of tonnes of ammunition, personal weapons and other pieces of war equipment. These latter supplies were probably more important than tanks or aircraft. For example, the trucks received from the USA gave a new degree of mobility to the Red Army, which heavily contributed to its grand successes later in the war. Aluminium and aviation-grade fuel re-vitalized its aviation more readily than aircraft. Food supplies were a welcome addition to the front rations, and so on.


my source for that is this, you have to scroll down to find it because I was just looking at the history of the Red Army and they had this so I figured I'd post it here becuase we had had this talk earlier in posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army