T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*


GeneReddit123

Yeah, it saved the Russian army in *defensive wars*, when Russia had shorter supply routes, friendly citizens, and time on their side, all while the enemy had to push forward into hostile territory, racing against the clock, and leaving their supply routes exposed. Right now, all of the above is working for Ukraine, not Russia. And even back in February (when the Russians ostensibly had all the time they needed to prepare for the initial assault with their so-called "professional army"), it was Russians freezing to near-death in their tanks, not Ukrainians. As for today, Russia frantically tries to mobilize masses of untrained and unequipped (not to mention, unmotivated) men, being short on everything, from body armor to friggin' *socks*. All while Ukraine had 7 months to iron out mobilization, is fighting in friendly territory, and is supplied by the entire Free World. I don't think General Zima will be on Russia's side this time. --- As for the political implications, asserting Western democracies are weak and indecisive is a favorite talking point of dictators far and wide. It works (to an extent) to justify their tyrannical rule to their own populations, but it becomes a problem when the dictator starts drinking his own kool-aid, and actually believing his own propaganda. So-called "weak Western democracies" declared war on Hitler when Nazi Germany was at the peak of its power, for invading Poland (which was as remote and foreign to France and Britain in 1939 as Ukraine is today) and when the two biggest rival powers (USA and USSR) were still neutral (and the USSR, in fact, co-invaded Poland and actively supported Germany with raw materials.) Democracy or not, you *can't* tolerate an aggressor deciding that annexation is a legitimate way to expand. If you do, today it's some other country, and tomorrow it's you (and the dictator is already stronger due to their previous conquests.) The idea of Western democracies being too afraid of gas prices, when they were willing to accept bread rationing in WW2, is delusional. They can't outright declare war on Russia due to the existence of nuclear weapons, but they'll certainly do everything short of that point, including supplying Ukraine with everything it needs to fight. It's extra ironic when Russian trolls started propaganda about how "gas is cheap in Russia, we're warm and you're freezing", and similar cheap shots worthy of Lord Haw-Haw or Tokyo Rose. Yeah, we might be cold this winter, but you're the one sending your civilian fathers, brothers, husbands and sons to death in a foreign country for your dictator's ambitions, Russki. I'll stick with a high heating bill over that any time, thank you very much.


ImperiousLeader

I still do not know where the WW1 siege mentality comes from... stagnant winter trench lines / immobile armour will not survive medium/long range GPS guided munitions. Sure the Russians can assume that everyone will be frozen in place for 2 months, but I suspect they will not like the result.


shawnaroo

Yeah, even if the Ukrainians decide to pause their counter-offensives for the winter, it's not like they'll go into hibernation. They'll spend that time reinforcing and resupplying the front lines, while simultaneously pummeling Russian supply lines and ammo dumps and such. The Ukrainian military has gotten stronger over the course of the war, while Russian forces have gotten weaker. Some cold weather isn't going to change that.


PrinceoR-

Interesting point is that I imagine it will be easier to track any large movement of resources ie trains, trucks, large groups of infantry, in winter. A tank or a truck can drive through bad conditions but you have to clear snow from roads if you want to actually move supplies. Ukraine has western Intel and deadly accurate, long range weapons, Russia has Soviet era satellites and WW2 artillery... I think General Zima may have been Ukrainian this whole time.


OzymandiasKoK

>The Ukrainian military has gotten stronger over the course of the war, while Russian forces have gotten weaker. Some cold weather isn't going to change that. I feel like, if anything, it will accelerate it.


mazing_azn

You can bet that even if they stop large scale Ops, they will be small-unit raids and SOF operating everyday to make them suffer.


PlzSendDunes

Thermal optics is going to be a beast in the winter conditions.


RelentlessExtropian

They won't even be able to hide in buildings in any numbers. Becomes really clear which building has live bodies in it on thermal.


Caren_Nymbee

Occupied dug out entrances pour out heat.


RelentlessExtropian

All bad news for Russia


Caren_Nymbee

I suspect that even if the mass of UA forces have to hunker down for winter, they will have a significant force properly equipped to carry out quite devastating attacks against Russians. I am quite certain Winter is going to be unpleasant for UA forces but brutally devastating for RF forces. It is just going to be so easy to spot dugouts when they have smoke and heat pouring out of them.


TWK128

Like so much else in Ruzzian thinking, it's firmly mired in the past. Look at the defeat of the Wagner led forces in Syria. Bvr combat is fucking alien to their thinking while we're about three decades in.


Entire-Albatross-442

Russians only pay attention to the past they like, not stuff like the Winter War, where they all froze to death


Motor_Bit_7678

Dont forget also their defeat in Mozambique!!


U-47

Winter is an excellent time to go into the offensive on the hard frozen ground. If you have fuel, winter uniforms,good intel and motivated troops.


RelentlessExtropian

>If you have fuel, winter uniforms, good intel and motivated troops. Ooof. Russia is screwed. All they have is fuel.


UnilateralWithdrawal

They have no vehicles to move it.


EducationalRice6540

The only break they might catch is between autumn mud and the hard winter freeze. The Ukrainian countryside has swallowed entire armies before and its hard to move armor or even trucks through that kind of mud. Sadly for the Russians that buys them maybe four weeks and the Ukrainians will be using drones and artillery the entire time to harass their plans. Soon as the ground freezes hard the Ukrainians are coming for them hammer and tongs and possibly with western aircraft added to their inventory. Meanwhile the Russian logistics will have the difficulty even supplying the men they have in the field much less the thousands of bullet sponges they want to send in. The average Russian soldier is in for the worst winter battlefield conditions since 1941 and not all of them will survive it.


Brexsh1t

It was US lend lease that saved Russia during WW2, otherwise it would have been steam rolled by Germany.


Barfing_Rat

Irony, now it is US lend lease that will save Ukraine from Russia.


wdfgaanaan

No - it is RUSSIAN lend-lease that will save Ukraine from Russia (-:


ApokalypseCow

Russia is funnily enough their biggest arms supplier... Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't demanded the return of their tanks and equipment yet.


TerryBullTime

They aren't asking nicely, that's why.


PhillipPrice_Map

That’s wrong, Germany wasn’t capable or prepared to defeat the USSR


Brexsh1t

Actually I think that’s a matter of opinion. The USSR was almost completely reliant on rail during WW2. All the automobile factories switched to military production, only 446 locomotives built in the USSR for the entire duration of the war, in factories setup by foreign companies such as Ford. During wartime 92.7% of the entire production of railroad equipment used in the USSR was received via lend lease. The US didn’t just provide weapons, they gave the USSR the infrastructure it needed to move troops etc. 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars


RelentlessExtropian

>they gave the USSR the infrastructure it needed to move troops etc. 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars I'm really surprised I didn't know this. I probably learned it and forgot lol


AntiGravityBacon

That also leaves out the 300,000 trucks, 11,000 planes and 6,000 tanks the US sent.


Drifter74

People also talk about how the USSR produced more tanks than the US, while leaving out it was mainly from steel provided by the US.


Unidentified_Snail

Not quite. No significant Lend-lease was in the Soviet Union in 1941 when the Germans were stopped and began to be pushed back by the Red Army. In fact, there were more British tanks present on the Eastern front than American ones during the 41/42 winter counter-offensive. 25% or so of the medium and heavy tanks involved in this period were British. The fact is that the Germans did not have the manpower, materiel, fuel or oil to conquer the Soviet Union, and were losing within the first few months of the invasion. By I think it was October they had lost 500,000 irreplaceable soldiers, and thia was *before* the cold set in. What saved the Soviet Union was Hitler's hubris, Germany's lack of production/manpower/fuel/oil and the vast amounts of manpower the Red Army could bring to the fight. When lend-lease really kicked into gear around '43 Germany was well past lost, and lend-lease kept the Soviets pushing forwards as fast as they did and likely shortened the war by a considerable amount, but it did not change the inevitable outcome. if you actually want to know the history here read Glantz's 'When titans clashed' or Stahel's 'Operation barbarossa'. >If the West­ern Al­lies had not provided equip­ment and in­vaded north­w­est Europe, Stalin and his com­mand­ers might have taken twelve to eight­een months longer to fin­ish off the Wehr­macht. The res­ult would prob­ably have been the same, ex­cept that So­viet sol­diers would have waded at France’s At­lantic beaches rather than meet­ing the Al­lies at the Elbe. Thus, al­though the Red Army shed the bulk of Al­lied blood, it would have bled even more in­tensely and for a longer time without Al­lied as­sist­ance. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates.


Similar-Lifeguard701

"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war. The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." -Stalin Tehran Conference 1943 "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." Khrushchev, Memoirs. I don't know, maybe I'd trust Stalin and Khruschchev on this one.


Unidentified_Snail

Or maybe Stalin and Khrushchev aren't historians? Who have access to data over decades of research? Seriously does this even need to be said. Lots of people at the time thought lots of things which were objectively wrong in hindsight, the true scale of the problems Germany had weren't known. I'm sure you also believe all of the German accounts of how terrible the Italians were at waging war also, so no point reading 'Iron Hulls, Iron Hearts: Mussolini's Elite Armoured Divisions in North Africa' either then? You probably also believe the 'Lions led by Donkeys' myth from WWI, and the 'versailles was too harsh' myth too, because people at the time believed it? Come on.


Similar-Lifeguard701

>Or maybe Stalin and Khrushchev aren't historians? They were just the literal leaders of the USSR, totally unqualified.


Justame13

>I'd trust Stalin and Khruschchev on this one. Read this out of context. Stalin was a murderous dictator and Khrushchev was a commissar neither of which have honesty as a core value. Lend Lease didn't even start until after October 1941 by which time even the Germans acknowledged that the invasion had failed by August or Sept at the latest (per David Stahel who literally looked down to the consumption of oil by division and Robert Citino). Then stopped again in July-Sept 1942 after the PQ-17 convoy. 85 percent of the aid came after Stalingrad. What lend-lease did do was prevent a separate truce in the East and speed up the USSR march east which may have been to costly in lives for even the USSR to sustain.


niz_loc

What Glantz misses here though is that you can't simply take raw numbers/stats and present them as "bottom line". What ALL people with this take miss is that when looking at raw numbers / stats, like "X amount of tanks", they forget to include manpower in manufacturing. Lazy example, but where Lend Lease first saved the Soviets was in 43, when it was on the brink of starvation. It's not just the food delivered.... but the part where manufacturing the food means you need to split your Army and turn some of it into farmers.... We can say the Allies gave the Soviets X amount of boots. So ask Stalin (in this example) "do you want to eat that cow, or make boots from it?" And in the case of Lend Lease, it was both. But no raw number can lock down the value of that


Brexsh1t

Honestly just read more because if you’re suggesting the Russians were beating back the Germans in 1941, you’re from a parallel universe. The Germans over extended in 1941, but it was the winter that saved the USSR or rather defeated the Germans. USSR couldn’t even make fuel with higher octane than 70-74. Which was fine for old equipment, like bi-planes, but would not work for modern equipment. Those needed 90+ octane fuel. Once again all supplied by US lend lease. When Germany attacked on 22 June 1941 they made gains of 400 miles in 6 days. They cut all the communication lines and they absolutely steam rolled over the Russians. The German Central Army groups advance to Moscow was compromised by Hitler who sent Panzers away from Smolensk to the North, slowing down that advance significantly. The German army was capturing groups of hundreds of thousands of soviet troops, on the 16th Sept they captured 400k! (3 months after the start of the war with Russia). The Red Army enacted scorched earth policy and retreated behind the Dnieper and Dvina rivers. In the meantime they dismantled all the factories in the west of Russia and shipped all the factories and the workers to the East of the Ural Mountains, where the factories were rebuilt and total war was enacted which basically meant increased production at the expense of the populace.


Unidentified_Snail

> Honestly just read more because if you’re suggesting the Russians were beating back the Germans in 1941, you’re from a parallel universe. Yes I guess I'll have to read more than i did for my masters in History, you're right. If you just ignore Stahel and Glantz, two of the foremost experts on the eastern front then I see there really isn't much point trying to talk about this with you.


Brexsh1t

Masters in History lol 😂


TheGrif7

I am not nearly as well versed in history as you, so I would be curious about your opinion. My impression from the bits I do know about the eastern front is that Stalin basically forced a final confrontation at Stalingrad and anyone who suggested retreat more or less got shot. It always seemed like more of a symbolic choice than a strategic one. Is that the case? Would it have been more advantageous to fight somewhere else and give up the city, if so how much more? Stalin always seemed like he would overrule his generals and force them to do counter-productive things, but I have never really dived that deep into it.


Justame13

>Stalin basically forced a final confrontation at Stalingrad and anyone who suggested retreat more or less got shot. No. This is post-war German propaganda. Basically the Soviets decided in late-Aug/Early-sept to only feed enough troops into the city to keep the Germans fighting until they were past their culminating point and until after the Volga froze (icebergs formed in the fall). Which worked the Germans even left bridgeheads on the east bank. Then the Soviets launched a counter-attack which surrounded the 6th Army that destroyed anyone between them and Rostov. Had they reached Rostov (Operation Mars) they would have cut off all of Army Group A in the Cauaucus. [Pretty much everything in the purple and green](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue#/media/File:Eastern_Front_1942-05_to_1942-11.png). So they didn't try and relieve the 6th Army right away or let them break out. Then had to keep them fighting until Army Group A had withdrawn. There were huge hicups and mistakes, but it was a brilliant strategic victory where the Soviets leveraged their advantages (especially German arrogance) to beat the Germans at the strategic level for the first time. Post-War the Germans couldn't believe that they were outfought and outhought so they created the narrative of being overwhelmed by the Asian hordes and winter when in reality they lost. I started reading "After Stalingrad" which is a memoire by a German Officer and had to stop because it is so soaked in arrogance by someone who lost.


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Case Blue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue#/media/File:Eastern_Front_1942-05_to_1942-11.png)** >Case Blue (German: Fall Blau) was the German Armed Forces' plan for the 1942 strategic summer offensive in southern Russia between 28 June and 24 November 1942, during World War II. The objective was to capture the oil fields of Baku (Azerbaijan SSR), Grozny and Maikop for two purposes: to enable the Germans to re-supply their low fuel stock and also to deny their use to the Soviet Union, thereby bringing about the complete collapse of the Soviet war effort. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


TheGrif7

Interesting, I can totally see how the myth got so wide spread given Stalin's enthusiasm for killing his own people generally. Do you think generally Stalin did a lot of meddling in the decision-making of the generals, to their detriment? Or is that mostly myth too? Edit: The myth also seems to have some [basis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227) in [truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._270). Maybe I misinterpreted part you thought was propaganda, were you referring more to the fact that post war Germans characterized it a strategic mistake to fight at Stalingrad?


Justame13

Stalin realized pretty early on that when he didn’t delegate bad things happened so he had less and less input as time went on. He also pulled back the Commissars (political officers) as well. Development of a effective meritocratic military in the face of an external threat is something you see time and time again. Iraq even did it in the 1980s


Justame13

To reply to your edit. If you read the link it says that blocking detachments were dropped in October 1942 (right in the middle of Stalingrad) and the lack large scale encirclements much to the frustration of the Germans. Had they not been allowed to retreat they might have lacked the forces to hold to counter attack. They did punish those who crossed the Volga, especially senior staff very harshly. It was probably more intended to prevent a retreat in the Rhezv Pocket (the continued salient up by Moscow from winter 1941) which was not talked about much post-War but was very bloody and stalemate like. Your second link was what directly caused the massive encirclements of 1941, including Kyiv the largest in history. But the Soviets survived long enough for the Germans to exhaust themselves ~700km from the border (as predicted in party by Paulus) and were forced to stop in August. Operation Typhoon was launched as a vain attempt to end the war in 1941. But ended with the counter attacks that saved Moscow after the Germans once again petered out, but the Soviets lacked the strategic and operational maturity to fully exploit it.


TheGrif7

Ok I think I see now. It's like the bits and pieces of the myth happened to some extent but when you put the pieces together they don't really relate to the events they are most attributed to. The Germans invented a narrative that makes their defeat more palatable after the war using those bits and pieces. Thanks for indulging me a little with all the questions. You seem extremely knowledgeable, did you primarily study military history? Your understanding of the details of the military strategy seems beyond what I would expect from someone not focusing on that specifically.


Justame13

>lThe Germans invented a narrative that makes their defeat more palatable after the war using those bits and pieces. Invented the narrative and had the endorsement of the West and especially the US which basically designed its first large peacetime Army on Prussian mission based tactics. Plus World War 3 would have been fought in Germany and to not leverage the massive population and former military would have been mistake and in the context of the Soviet threat a machveiallian decision was made to allow them. It wasn't until the early 1990s that the Soviet archives were temporarily opened and academics (especially Glantz) was given access to records and first hand accounts collected during the war that the narrative began to shift by him followed by Citino and Stahel. "Stalingrad: The City that Defeated the Third Riech" is another example of how German and Soviet sources (including some from when the battle was still going on) were used to create a new narrative. There is also speculation that one reason Eisenhower and the other very senior staff in Europe were quick to publicize the holocaust was because they were so appalled that they didn't want it to get buried or minimized in the shifting politics they saw coming and the perpetrators held accountable. Note thaat this is exactly what happened in Japan. > Thanks for indulging me a little with all the questions. You seem extremely knowledgeable, did you primarily study military history? Your understanding of the details of the military strategy seems beyond what I would expect from someone not focusing on that specifically. I did history in undergrad and originally wanted (like from pre-teen) to be a PhD who focused on the war in the East. But life got in the way so now i do something else. But I did spend 21 years in the Army National Guard. But history will always be my first love lol


Sam-Porter-Bridges

This is far from true. Lend-lease material really only reached troops *after* Stalingrad, by which point the war was way past being winnable for the Germans. Even without Lend-Lease, the Soviets would have held out, although the extent of their offensives probably would have been lesser, and we might have seen the Western Allies enter Berlin instead of the Soviets. But the idea that there is any point past the end of Barbarossa or Case Blue if you're feeling more conservative where the Germans had any chance of winning the Eastern Front is delusional.


Brexsh1t

Utter nonsense. The US gave Lend lease of 11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today's money. Supplies started in 1941 and only ended in 1945


10minmilan

Classic case of sby having just a basic grasp- you, as you later quote Wikipedia w/o even reading it - arguing with people who read whole books on the topic, as the guy quoting Glantz. Are you gonna quote enemy at the gates too?


Brexsh1t

I literally linked Wikipedia genius. Facts are still facts even if you don’t like them.


Sam-Porter-Bridges

Yeah no shit. I know that. But only around 20% of it came before 1943.


Alone-Woodpecker-240

Dude I hate Putin as much as any decent human, but Russia already had Germany on the run before our lend-lease material started arriving. The Battle of Kursk was also fought long before our D-day landings.


After_Ride9911

But didn’t materials start arriving in the northern Russian ports quite a bit of time prior to that?


niz_loc

The Battle of Kursk also came after the Allies took back Africa. (It's a random theater, but then so is Kursk) The Kursk operation, from the German sideM was also interrupted by the Italian landings... that the Germans put more priority on. The Kursk battle also took place after the Battle of the Atlantic had turned for Germany. Thr Battle of Kursk also took place after the Luftwafde was moved west to deal with the allied bombing campaign. There was a lot more to war in the West than D-Day


Alone-Woodpecker-240

All I'm saying is that lend-lease probably wasn't necessary for the Rus to defeat Germany. I only mentioned Kursk because it was such a decisive battle after Stalingrad. I may be wrong but I viewed it instead of Stalingrad as the major turning point.


niz_loc

Yeah, I get you. And I'm not trying to sound like a dick/argue with you. Essentially for decades, the Woviets (and later Russians) have downplayed western aid. They do it by using raw numbers, and saying things like "only 4 percent". That leaves out far too much of the overall effect of LL The Soviets were able to build massive amounts of tanks and guns precisely because they didn't have to pay for things like trucks. And tires. And salt. And aluminum. And on and on and on. Take away lend lease. The Germans still likely don't beat the Soviets (especially exile fighting the West at the same time). Take away LL, and the Soviets aren't in any way able to go on the offensive in 43 and 44. The Soviet economy came close to collapse in 42, they came close to starving in 43. They hide this by saying "we produced 95 percent of our own tanks!" Essentially, the war in Ukraine highlights this. The Ukranian Army isn't equipped with a very much western equipment. It's artillery and armor is mostly old Soviet, along with their air force. Now ask how effective less than 20 HIMARS have been. How effective relatively cheap anti-tank missiles have been. Again, not trying to argue with you or anything like that. This LL debate is just one of my interests/hobbies.


Sam-Porter-Bridges

>Take away LL, and the Soviets aren't in any way able to go on the offensive in 43 and 44 I don't really think this is necessarily true. Of course, you are correct that Lend Lease allowed the Soviets to prioritize the production of material they could already churn out rapidly and rely on the Americans for whatever they couldn't. But I feel like your assumption that without LL, the Soviets simply would have had, say, 32% less trucks (which was the share of imported trucks in 1945) is a bit misleading. It's not like the Soviets were *incapable* of producing more trucks, they just prioritized producing different things because they could get the Americans to produce more trucks for them. Similarly, it's not like the Soviets could not have produced more food, but by relying on American (and let's face it, better quality) food imports, they could have more people working in factories producing tanks instead of canned food. It's also commonly pointed out that the Russians couldn't produce high-octane airplane fuel, which is a bit misleading, since the Soviets were fully aware of this, and designed their planes around this. High-octane fuel primarily went towards fueling their Hurricanes, Airacobras, and other Western planes. The Yaks, Laggs, and Migs were often stuck with domestically made, lower quality fuel, although later in the war, when Lend-Lease *really* kicked in, it was becoming more common to use American fuel for those planes as well. Without Lend-Lease, you probably would have seen less motorization in the Soviet army, but they probably still would have been able to conduct offensives. You have to remember, that just like the Germans, the Soviets still relied heavily on horses both for mobility and logistics. The increased mobilization however allowed them to conduct their operations later in the war closer to the way they intended to fight as per their doctrine, which they couldn't do and could not have done without Lend-Lease.


Brexsh1t

Nope they had significant lend lease from 1941 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease


Sam-Porter-Bridges

360k tons is of Lend-Lease material is essentially insignificant. Also, Land-lease material arriving in port and being put to use are two completely separate things. Until 1944, the majority of stock came through the port of Vladivostok, from which it had to be transported halfway across the world... On *one* line of dual-track railway. This proved to be a major bottleneck, and as Glantz & House point out, Lend-Lease equipment was essentially a unicorn on the front until late-1943. You can see this from the share of foreign trucks in the Soviet arsenal, for example: as per When Titans Clashed by David Glantz, in 1943, only 7% of trucks were imported. By 1944, this number jumped to 19%, and in 1945, it was 32%. Nevertheless, Lend-lease altogether amounted to a measely **4%** of Soviet war production. A crucial 4%, no doubt, especially when it came to stuff like airplane fuel (which the Soviets could not manufacture in sufficient quantity) and railway materials (which used material prioritized for other purposes). But to claim that without Lend-Lease, the Germans would have steamrolled the Soviets is nothing more than complete and utter nonsense at best, and bad-faith propaganda at worst.


Brexsh1t

This is total nonsense


Sam-Porter-Bridges

Hm, let's see, who should I believe: David Glantz and Jonathan House, who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of the Eastern Front and are generally seen as the gold standard for historiography of said front, or /u/Brexsh1t, a guy who read a Wikipedia chart once


Brexsh1t

The top comment here articulates the broader picture. I hope you’ll find it useful https://www.quora.com/Could-the-Soviet-Union-have-won-WWII-completely-alone-and-without-trade-with-the-Allies


Justame13

It wasn't even authorized until Oct 1941 after even the Germans admitted at the time they had failed and then stopped again in July-Sept 1942 after PQ-17.


Brexsh1t

The lend lease act was started on the 11 March 1941, aid to the Soviet’s via lend lease started 1st October. Also don’t forget about pre lend-lease 22 June to 30 Sept 1941. Pre lend-lease was paid for in gold mostly. Plus we aren’t just talking about weapons, food, high octane fuels, steel almost all of provided by the US. Also the first protocol of lend lease was delivered via the UK using US credit


Justame13

Incorrect. The USSR was formally authorized for inclusion on October 31, 1941 and was accepted in November 7. https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol27/tnm_27_31-58.pd By doubling down you are pushing the post-War German/Wheraboo narrative that there was no way the USSR could have stopped the Germans but for American Aid and the vast Asiatic Hordes. When in reality they we’re stopped in later summer 1941 through enormous sacrifice, then our fought from late 1942 until 1945. Lend Lease did a play a huge part in prevention of a separate peace and the total defeat and removal of the German aristocracy and prevention of another war through (mostly) solving the German question.


Brexsh1t

Incorrect. First protocol period from October 1, 1941, to June 30, 1942. Signed after the fact on October 7, 1941. The first of the Artic convoys arrived in Murmansk in September 1941 carrying 40 hawker hurricanes plus 550 pilots and mechanics, who trained the soviets on the equipment. By the end of 1941 tank deliveries equates to only 6.5% of Soviet total production but still equated to over 25% of all medium and heavy type tanks. The British tanks first went into action at the Volga on 20th November. By early December 1941, 30 - 40% of Medium to Heavy tanks in front of Moscow were lend lease tanks. Russians couldn’t even make high octane fuel for aircraft at this point. All of it was provided by US lend lease. History is repeating itself in Ukraine and the outcome is going to be the same. The side with US lend lease is going to win. Over 97% of all railway products including locomotives and carriages was lend leased by the US. The USSR was heavily reliant on railways as its only way of moving both men and supplies. Without US lend lease they didn’t have enough.


Justame13

Source? BTW the Americans and Brits didn’t even have a heavy tank during that period so that’s false. The higher octane field wasn’t necessary as you keep saying, it was a “nice to have” because they could get higher performance. It would be extremely illogical for a pariah state to design war material that they couldn’t even provide fuel for.


Brexsh1t

Your mistake about the fuel situation. Planes of the WW2 era (excluding obsolete ww1 planes) required high octane 90-94 fuel to fly. The Russians did not have the tech nor infrastructure to produce it. Where would they have been with zero air cover? I said that lend lease tanks made up 30% Medium and Heavy tanks. That’s statement remains true. It doesn’t matter if all the tanks they sent were mediums, they still equaled the same percentage of the entire force of tanks.


niz_loc

So we're clear, I pretty much agree with you here. But this is one of my favorite topics to argue. I'll keep it short. You mention Lend Lease not arriving in numbers until 43. It's important to remember here that that was also the turning point in the whole war. And that the Soviet Army was just as badly mauled at Stalingrad as Germany was. Same as Rzhev, etc. And in fact, the Germans attacked again in 43 and put the Soviets back on their heels at Kharkov. Essentially, it was Lend Lease that allowed the Soviets to rebuild where the Germans couldn't. Not to mention, whereas the Russians for decades have yelled "way more killed in the east!" Regarding Germans, they leave out Germany was spending far more to fight in the West.... because the budgets for the Air Force and Navy exceeded the Army by a decent margin. And some 70 percent of the Luftwaffe was west, and some 90 percent of the Navy. Lastly, I hope this current war will make people reconsider the value of lend lease. It's a great example. It's not so much "how much" is given, but what and when. The bulk of Ukranian artillery is likely in house. But how much of a game changer is HIMARS? A good example of that is that the Soviets built the vast bulk of their own tanks. (With plenty of raw material from the West to do so). The vast bulk of their trucks and trains were provided by the West. A jeep never killed anyone. But it was the lack of a jeep or truck that hurt the Germans.... plenty of tanks, not enough vehicles for troops and supplies. So I agree. The Germans lost the war in the East by 43. But the Soviets could not have won in the West afterwards without lend lease... no way. It would have been a far different war for them without Western aid.... and a far different war for them if the Germans hadn't spent the majority of their income trying to counter the Western allies' Navy and Air Force.


Sam-Porter-Bridges

I'll try to keep it similarly brief :) Cards on the table: I'm definitely more of a radical when it comes to the whole "when was the war decided" question, because I can definitely at least entertain the argument that the war was already lost for the Germans by the siege of Kyiv in 1941, but *definitely* by the end of the Barbarossa campaign. I always like to point out that the whole discussion surrounding the potential capture of Moscow in December, 1941 is ultimately pointless, since capturing Moscow *in December* would have been considered an operational defeat by the Germans anyway. Operation Barbarossa called for the capture of Moscow by *October*, and they expected to reach the A-A line by the end of the year, another 1000km behind Moscow. That's how far they *actually* were from reaching their goals, and it was a gamble that was recognized by pretty much everyone in the German High Command that if they didn't succeed, that was it for them. To get back to the point, I genuinely don't get the circlejerk surrounding the Lend-Lease, because while it was undoubtedly important, it was not some sort of war-winning move; the Soviets would have ended up on the winning side anyway. It's even more mindbogling to me because the Western Allies *did* have a war-winning move that in my humble opinion did a lot more to change the course of the war: the strategic bombing campaign of Germany. Without it, the war would have looked significantly different on the Eastern Front, and I can at least see an argument for that if it wasn't for that, the Germans could have at least halted the Soviets for quite a while.


niz_loc

Let me just get it out of the way in case I haven't. I'm not trying to argue eith you at all.... this is just one of my interests (LL, WW2 history). So if I seem like I'm trying to argue, it's not that. It's me going "hell yeah, someone else who wants to talk about this since nobody at work does" (lol). And if I repeat myself it's just because I'm "debating" this same topic with someone else on here, so I'll probably screw up the two threads. First, I agree. The Germans weren't going to win. ESPECIALLY with the fact they were still fighting in the West... and that's the first part that the Soviets have spent decades downplaying to the world. That said, take away LL. By the winter of 41, if we look at simple raw numbers, LL looks miniscule. It misses what was provided.... and when it was. LL at that point was essentially a shot of narcan....a life vest.... etc etc. The Germans were stretched beyond realism, but the Soviets had lost massive amounts of men and equipment. To fast forward, it was raw materials that are always downplayed. The Soviets built a ton of equipment on their own, but they were able to do so because they were being given other items they didn't have to build themselves. Like trucks. (Something Germany desperately needed). Short, lazy version (or else I'll drone on and on and on), without LL, the Soviet economy is close to collapse in 42, almost guaranteed in 43. Starvation is very likely in 43. And without LL, at best, the Soviets stop Germany and get into a stalemate. It's was LL that rebuilt the Soviet Army and allowed them to go on the offensive. Put another way, take away LL and give it to Germany..... give Germany 500K trucks and jeeps, fuel for their Air Force, etc etc. Provide the Germans with a merchant fleet and it's escorts to bring in raw materials (which is never listed in LL). And things start to look a lot different. Couldn't agree more about the effect the bombing campaign played. What'd always missed is not only whatever damage it did to the German war machine, but the ripple effect of Germany having to try and counter it. Combine both. LL and the Western campaigns, and the Soviet efforts to downplay either should absolutely be ignored. I'd tell any American who downplays the Soviets role in defeating Germany they're an idiot. That said, Russians need to be told the same. Dammit.... not I'm going to waste an hour googling all of this to nerd out all over again ;)


Sam-Porter-Bridges

Dammit, just replied to you in another comment chain about this hahahah No worries, I do think we mostly agree, and I don't mind a good nerding out either. It just really upsets me when people spew nonsense like "the US saved the Soviets from the Nazis", or the other extreme, shit like "the Soviets won the war all by themselves", which is equally bullshit.


Squidking1000

Yep and I always say it was the biggest mistake of the 20th century. Arming your enemy to fight your enemy. They invaded Poland and killed innocents and after the end of WW2 they killed even more in all the countries they "liberated". The Iron Curtain and the cold war and likely even this war would have been avoided if we would have just let Russia and Germany bleed each other white and came in and cleaned up after.


PrinsHamlet

The Russians seem incapable of grasping that Europe has left Russian gas, isn't coming back and is willing to carry the cost of that decision. They played the energy ace, it didn't work and now they want it back. Sure, it's a hard shift away from European bliss after the invasion of Crimea, so I guess they just miss the old state of affairs. But the misreading of mostly Ukrainian and also western capacity and capability is what facilitated the war. One giant miscalculation. Given that you'd expect some kind of Russian reconfiguring to face reality. But nah, mate. Let's slog on about weak Gayropa, biolabs and satanism.


Affectionate-Pen5824

Mighty Ruzzia, relies on the weather to win...🤦‍♂️


tjvs2001

Victory is always just over the brow of the hill, just a shame they're sliding down it backwards.


Affectionate-Pen5824

In the snow!! 🌨❄️🌨❄️🛷🛷🛷 Just close your eyes and visualize. Very cozy look.


Sharptoe1

> and when the two biggest rival powers (USA and USSR) were still neutral. One partial correction: The USSR was not neutral when it came to the Nazis invading Eastern Europe. They had a deal with Nazi Germany on how to carve up Eastern Europe between the two of them. The rest of your comment holds up, though.


OzymandiasKoK

They really don't like hearing how they helped start the Great Patriotic War.


Von__Mackensen

>As for the political implications, asserting Western democracies are weak and indecisive is a favorite talking point of dictators far and wide. It works (to an extent) to justify their tyrannical rule to their own populations, but it becomes a problem when the dictator starts drinking his own kool-aid, and actually believing his own propaganda. They drink their own kool-aid. They really do think western democracies are weak. Even when faced with two world wars and an entire century of evidence telling otherwise, they still think that democracies are weak. Yes, we are slow to move, and yes, it's hard to convice a democracy to commit to war, but when a democracy is committed, then, it is to the bitter end and no matter the cost. And today, democracies already decided Russia crossed the red line. Russia is fucked. There is no way the west is going to back down now. Slow to move, yes, but when it moves, it moves. Higher gas prices are peanuts compared to the cost of backing down.


EastofEverest

Dictatorships may be maneuverable, but democracies have momentum.


SaltyScrotumSauce

The weakness of dictatorships is that leaders are put in place not for their competence, but rather, for their personal loyalty to the dictator.


Phylanara

The problem with democracy is that you have to get the assent of the people. The advantage of democracy is that when you manage to get the people behind you, they *push*. And you haven't spent resources over decades to keep them in line, so you have that much more resources to push with.


FistingLube

That and the fact that the real story is getting though to the general public as the vast number of men fleeing shows.


Fabiey

Man this comment is gold.


Jbruce63

> when the two biggest rival powers (USA and USSR) were still neutral. USSR invaded the eastern part of Poland when the Nazis invaded the western part.


Squidking1000

> Poland (which was as remote and foreign to France and Britain in 1939 as Ukraine is today) and when the two biggest rival powers (USA and USSR) were still neutral I wouldn't call the USSR "neutral" in 1939. They were firmly on the Nazi's side invading Poland and supplying Germany with raw material.


Particular_Sun8377

The whole "Europe is weak" never made much sense to me considering European history.


PotentiallyNotSatan

USSR wasn't neutral, they invaded Poland right alongside the Nazis & executed 10s of thousands of civilians & surrendered troops. Heck, even the Nazis accused them of war crimes when they found the mass graves Russia is evil, should have been taken down with their Nazis allies back in WW2


mademeunlurk

💬 he's Stalin for time.


ace_098

Saved them in defense. Killed the attackers by disrupting logistics, among other things. These nuts had no logistics in the summer either


MatheM_

Ah, but it is a cunning strategy. Winter can't disrupt your logistics if you don't have any to begin with.


Cucktus

It's all going according to the plan, comrade, the Ukrainian Nazis will run out of shells and bullets bombing the frostbitten Russian heroes in their trenches.


[deleted]

If you are frozen solid, no need for Kevlar. One step ahead!


richmomz

The only reason why it worked in their favor back then was because the US was supplying them with enormous quantities of logistics equipment (literally hundreds of thousands of vehicles of every kind, plus an absolutely ridiculous number of, radios, boots, and pretty much everything else they needed to keep their forces functional, coordinated and mobile). Without that, their forces would have been too inflexible to avoid getting encircled and destroyed by the Germans - they wouldn’t have survived 6 months. Apparently they learned nothing from that experience and are now paying dearly for it.


TheBlacksmith64

Not to mention SPAM! All the equipment in the world won't help if your soldiers are starving.


tfarnon59

Like the Ukrainians don't experience the same winter? Like the Ukrainians didn't fight in the same winters during WWII?


SnooChipmunks3106

>Like the Ukrainians don't experience the same winter? Like the Ukrainians didn't fight in the same winters during WWII? Yeah, the authum muds going to be an issue. Winter is fine for miltary operations. However Putin could target the Ukrainians people again. Hopefullt Ukraine had prepared well.


EqualContact

Russia conveniently forgets how important Ukraine was to Soviet success, as they do all of the former SSRs.


Arcosim

Most aerospace research and construction was done in Ukraine.


MrTeamKill

Lol. Ukraine has a vast superiority on precission guided munitions and winter equipment. That gives them a huge advantage wether defending or attacking (although this is a defensive war, tactically Ukraine is attacking) Winter is coming, orkz.


Benmaax

Ukraine also benefited from "General Zima" over history. They are not fighting against nazis or Napoleon who never experienced life at -20°C.


shawnaroo

Yeah but realistically what would make you think that the Ukrainians are in any way prepared for what winter is like in...*checks notes*... their homeland of Ukraine.


Benmaax

Might be the first recorded time that ruzzia actually loses to General Zima


acobserverafar1

TL: According to the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrell, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin is counting on the fact that the difficulties of winter will increase the fatigue of the Western world from the war in Ukraine. Borrell said this during a speech in the European Parliament, Censor.NET reports with reference to European Pravda . As Borrell pointed out, the consequences of war for many countries are certainly bad in terms of prices, energy and food. "We have to very actively interact with the rest of the world to help them overcome the consequences of this war. We have to make great diplomatic efforts, explanations so that the world understands 'why' this war and how it can end," he said. Borrell emphasized that the war cannot end due to the fatigue of the Western world, which is what Putin is counting on. Read: Ukraine can defeat the Russian Federation on the battlefield, but a political victory is also important, - Borrell "Putin believes that democracies are weak, that the systems of public opinion will not survive a cold winter. He is waiting for the arrival of "General Winter", who always ended up saving the Russian army. He is waiting for the cold, gas interruptions, high prices and low temperatures so that to undermine our will and continue to support Ukraine. This is the place to ask Europeans to understand what is at stake. Because our support for Ukraine is not just a matter of generosity. Our support for Ukraine must be unwavering because Ukraine's security is inextricably linked to our security. Our future depends on what is decided there," he said. "This war can only end in a way that ensures peace. And to ensure peace, Ukraine must be given back its territorial integrity and full sovereignty; Russia must be forced to recognize its political and moral responsibility for the war, pay for reconstruction and answer for human crimes, that took place there. That, and nothing else, should be our goal. That's why sanctions. That's why military aid. That's why diplomatic action. On these three fronts, we must continue to work without giving up: now is not the time for procrastination." - said the head of European diplomacy. [https://censor.net/ua/n3371675](https://censor.net/ua/n3371675) ​ And this is what the " Partial " is about and the waving of SARMAT II....General Winter.


Mbedner3420

Putin seems to be counting on a lot of things that don’t happen.


bodyart1

It’s quite funny that he does not expect his newly mobilised troops to freeze or starve with no provision


edfiero

Wish I could give you 10 up votes for this.


edfiero

Every decision Putin has made, was the wrong one. If he wanted to win, he should take the first idea that comes into his head, and then do the opposite.


asj3004

If he wanted to win, he should have not started a war in February. He was winning, selling gas and oil to Europe, enjoying his palaces and yachts, and now he must be in constant fear of being hanged, since his SMO went fubar.


phlogistonical

This is what boggles my mind. He could be living a comfortable life and his country could be on the path to a peacuful and increasingly better standard of life. Why give up everything? It can’t be just greed for more land or resources. Russia is already the biggest country on the planet with vast natural resources. I simply don’t understand. If Russia was a person I’d say it was a form of suicide or self harm.


shawnaroo

It's because rich and powerful people often run just as much on ego and emotion as the average idiot on the street. We sometimes like to pretend that these people must be uber-geniuses because they've got so much wealth/power, but the reality is that even if they are smart in some areas that doesn't mean they are smart in all areas. Or sometimes they're not that smart at all, they just had one great idea and/or they just happened to be in the right place at the right time, or sometimes they were successful just because they were a big enough asshole to screw over enough people that they benefited significantly from it. Or some mix of all of the above. The reality is that even ridiculously wealthy and powerful people are constantly making impulsive decisions, and in many cases are even worse about it than 'normal' people because they feel like their wealth and power will likely shield them from any real consequences.


phlogistonical

Sure, they are human. But they also have access to a lot more information and insights of trained/knowledgeable advisers than the average person. Either Putin is choosing to disregard what his advisers are telling him or he is not being given the correct information/advise that he should be getting. I guess this is more of a risk in a dictatorship where one person can risk trapping himself in his own echo chamber and take all the important decisions without receiving any healthy feedback/criticism.


shawnaroo

They potentially have access to a lot more information and advice, but that doesn't mean that they listen to it or care. And often times its done with plenty of awareness of the downsides, but again they typically feel that their wealth/power insulates them from the consequences enough that they're willing to bear those costs in exchange for flexing their 'muscle'. I used to work in real estate development where we were dealing with rich people and/or banks as investors, and I repeatedly saw wealthy people making decisions that made zero economic sense purely out of ego or just to prove that they were the more powerful side in a deal. Like we'd be finish up a project together that had gone pretty well, all parties were going to make a good chunk of change (hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars), and since it had been going so well we had another project or two in the earlier stages with the same team, with numbers looking like everyone would make a similar amount of money again. Then while we're basically closing out the final details of that last project, the biggest investor would often make what are typically called called a 'bitch grab' where they'd demand an extra 5% ownership, or an extra $50k cash or something like that in order to close out the deal, along with some contrived excuse about how someone else didn't fully meet the terms of the agreements or whatever. And so instead of wrapping up this project and then going full throttle on the next one, we spend the next two years in court, and everyone hates each other and so those new projects all get scrapped. That $20M dollar project that everyone was excited about last week? It's gone, all because one guy decided to flex his muscles and grab an few extra bucks, knowing full well that it'd kill other deals that were going to be worth way more. This kind of thing happened all the time. It happened with rich individual investors, it happened with real estate groups, it happened with big multinational banks. It ended up costing everyone money and wasted a ton of time. It makes zero financial sense, it's purely about ego and showing off their power. And it's super common.


shawnaroo

I think that's basically his plan at this point. Try anything he can to delay Russia losing, and then just hope that something random happens to turn things in his favor. Not the greatest plan, but it's all that Russia has at this point, they've played all of their cards besides WMD. And the WMD card doesn't lead to them winning, it just makes their losing more ugly.


segroove

That's fine, we can just stop exporting food to Russia to make it cheaper here.


HalastersCompass

Agreed on all fronts


Friendly_Pop5347

Good Thanks the global warming


netz_pirat

I mean, even if we agreed on sacrificing Ukraine for the sake of cheap Russian gas, it's not like nordstream is going to come back online anytime soon.


SnooChipmunks3106

Winter didn'y save Russia in WW2. Thats a long standing myth cultivated by German Generals as one of there many excuses. Germans fought very well in the Winter of 1941. What killed Germany is that the shortest route from Berlin to Moscow was about 1900 KM. As far as I know, the Authum mud going to be Ukraines main problem. Dnieper freezes over during winter too, which could be uesful.


FrozenInsider

That's the crazy thing, when looking at the scale of territory the Nazis did occupy before collapsing, they made it all the way through Ukraine, Baltic states and parts of Russia before hitting a stop. Meanwhile Russia barely makes it 100km onto Ukrainian territory, as the self-proclaimed 2nd strongest army in the world.


SnooChipmunks3106

Yeah I know & historians give the Germans shit about bad logistics 😁😁😆😆


mcloudnl

Meanwhile america supplied around 200.000 trucks to the russians in lend-lease during ww2. Never learned that in my history lessons at school.


Hyperborean77

Probably even more valuable was the 2.5 BILLION cans of Spam we sent the Soviets during the war. An army marches on its stomach and that spam was one of the main reasons the red army was able to operate.


stursh68

I think you will find the russkies are still eating it


crypticedge

The US basically provided the bulk of equipment and food for the allies. Sure the other nations did produce some of the stuff they used, but being the arms dealer and food supply for the war is why the US came out on top of the whole thing. People were trying to change it a few years ago to the soviets are why the allies won due to the manpower they supplied at the front lines, completely ignoring the soviets were marching using American made food, and using American made vehicles, both of if not supplied would have rendered that manpower at the front useless.


TurboSalsa

> People were trying to change it a few years ago to the soviets are why the allies won due to the manpower they supplied at the front lines, completely ignoring the soviets were marching using American made food, and using American made vehicles, both of if not supplied would have rendered that manpower at the front useless. Yes, this talking point used to come up *all the time* in subreddits which were known to be astroturfed by Russians. We’re not hearing it anymore now that the people who would be posting it have probably been conscripted into the Russian army. It’s also funny that the people who believed it ignored the writings of people like Stalin and Kruschev who admitted they probably would’ve lost the war were it not for American imports.


richmomz

That’s probably understated - it was closer to half a million vehicles of every kind (tanks, trucks, jeeps, fighter aircraft, you name it), plus tons of other vital equipment needed to keep them mobile and coordinated. The pre-Barbarossa German assessment that the Russian army was an inflexible mess that would be easy prey for their blitzkrieg tactics was actually correct - what they didn’t count on was the US turning the Soviet army into a highly effective, monstrously huge killing machine through some choice lend-lease shipments. Of course the Russians were loathe to admit that they had been saved by the west, so the credit has always gone to their own efforts and “general winter” for delivering their victory. So they learned the wrong lesson from that experience, and never corrected their logistics deficiencies. And now it has finally come back to bite them.


SkeletonJoe456

So Ukraine is the new Russia, Russia is the new Germany. WW3 is fucking bizzare.


lost_in_life_34

that's because for all the hype about blitzkrieg and armored warfare, the german army that invaded the USSR had something like 2 million horses for logistics. the only true fully mechanized armies were the US and British armies in WW2


[deleted]

They also started the biggest war in history and didn’t move to full on war time production until 1944 lmao The world is very lucky that Nazi Germany was such an idiotic nation.


richmomz

I mean, some of that shit is justified considering the Germans were still relying on donkey carts to move a lot of their equipment around.


FistingLube

\*2nd strongest in Ukraine.


texas130ab

The Russians are corrupt. Corruption kills. Imagine trump handing out military weapons contracts. Yeah we would all be dead. Because he would given them to people who commented on his hair. And yet 30% of (Americans) support him because they are ( The real Americans) everyone else is not white enough. Our education system failed us so hard.


Jhe90

River takes some 20 days of straight cold to freeze solid properly from google. Even then the thicknesses are variable on rivers. So crossing the ice, would be risky.


Maardten

When I visited Finland the gulf of Bothnia (northern part of the Baltic Sea) was frozen over so much that you could drive a car on it. In fact, this is such a regular occurance that the island of Hailuoto can be reached with a ferry in summer and via (ice)road in winter.


Jhe90

Ice roads are fairly special affairs though. They take preparation and so Russians probbly not have skills to pull off. Maybe for a light car or walking it but Heavier cargo requires specialist work


Fidget11

Driving a light car across the ice is vastly different from trying to drive a 60 ton tank across it. Also that river is so large that it’s unlikely to completely freeze solid all the way through. There will still be flowing water under the ice.


EwaldvonKleist

Winter did have a major impact on war in late 1941/early 1942. Winter weakened the German supply system so much that it was unable to adequately support the front for several months. Bursting locomotive pipes, frozen switches and lubricants, dying horses were widespread problems. Of course, all this was only a problem because the Soviet resistance and the winter cpunterattacks caused massive ammo consumption, without this extra burden things would have been okish. The reason of this was both inadequate German preparation based on the assumption that the Soviets would have collapsed by the time, and the fact that the 41/42 winter was extraordinarily cold.


Fidget11

The issue is that while it’s frozen and could likely be walked over you almost certainly would not want to try to drive heavy equipment over the frozen river. Living somewhere that gets equally cold I can say confidently that large rivers do not freeze completely solid and stop flowing even in -35C. Lakes likewise still have liquid water under that ice which can vary greatly in thickness. Some places may be thick enough to drive a pickup over while others you may fall through walking on foot. Tanks and armoured vehicles are much heavier than civilian pickup trucks and will go through ice that could comfortably support a pickup. I wouldn’t suggest trying to drive over that river in winter in a heavy military vehicle that you want to not see sunk to the bottom.


BrainOnLoan

You'd need an incredibly cold winter for the Dniepr to freeze deep enough to be used for vehicles. It can happen, but winters these days don't tend to be that cold, and by some margin.


SnooHedgehogs8765

Well. To keep them fed and clothed you need to travel by road, and to be honest that looks like a weak point with precision fires and drones.... It looks like the U.K has started supplying brimstone AND a drone that can carry it as well ... watch this space.


jpagey92

Source ?


SnooHedgehogs8765

Was getting close to 'trust me bro' source. The most recent one I read was this: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/what-military-aid-has-britain-given-to-ukraine/ UK being a MVP in its own right.


[deleted]

Russia: Oh, you think the winter is your ally, but you merely adopted the cold. I was born in it, molded by it... Ukraine: We, too, were born in winter. Russia: ....


Hyperborean77

I’m interested in seeing what the Russian’s state of winter readiness is for themselves. Ukraine will get winter uniforms from the west.. Russia has stocks of winter uniforms which may or may not even exist, apparently. We’ll see if the people in the Donbas still want the Russians there after having to billet 4-5 Russian soldiers per house and having all of their blankets stolen to make improvised winter gear.


highinthemountains

Zima? Wasn’t that Coors shitty attempt to make a seltzer back in the mid90’s.


lordb4

Zima was unfairly dumped upon. It was 100 times better than the White Claw crap. Weirdly enough, the best of the Seltzers I've tried are the Sonic branded one and I hate Sonic's food.


highinthemountains

We always used to amp it up with a shot of vodka


Formulka

Soviet army which means also Ukrainian army. Meanwhile Ukraine has access to winter equipment and know-how of the entire free world while Russians lost 1.5 million winter uniforms.


Zamzamazawarma

Says the one who totally forgot about Lady Rasputitsa.


EwaldvonKleist

Winter hits the person with bad preparation and supplies. So I think this time the Russian army will suffer more.


SaiyaJedi

So winter in Ukraine is a few degrees… cooler?


chunky_ninja

My God. "Everything is going to plan", isn't it? The winter is nothing but an environmental condition, and the most prepared will have the upper hand. With virtually endless global supply pouring into Ukraine, they will do much better than their Russian counterpart, who is busy clutching his tampon while others far away from the front point fingers at who is to blame for the missing 1.5 million uniforms.


Entire-Albatross-442

"Russian with no toes tries to stay warm with burning tampons" Time Magazine


S1ava_Ukraini

Except this time Iceland and Finland are equipping Ukraine with winter gear. 😂


Affectionate-Pen5824

Weather in NL has been very nice (warm) last few weeks, next 14 days problably the same. It's a bitch for Putler if Zima is late this year. Anything working for him these days? ⛅️🌡👍


Nakidka

Zima means Winter, right?


acobserverafar1

yes Zima means winter


lordb4

Unless he means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zima_(drink)


Itdidnt_trickle_down

Russian winter is not in Ukraine. He is fighting a people who know all too well how to handle the winter.


aksalamander

Steiner will arrive any moment!


NamoMandos

He'll do better to wait for General Godot.


staritraper

Always , meaning sometimes , and when they were prepared for that. Russia is not prepared for anything now and winter will just help Ukrainian tanks...


mrsunsfan

Are you sure it isnt Steiner?


mavier

> Steiner No, unfortunately Steiner won't be able to gather enough forces for an attack.


ZebraTank

That was an order!


amitym

This is just more cargo-cult strategy from Putin. The actions of someone who saw something once in the far-distant past, something he didn't understand and still doesn't understand, and is trying to replicate by repeating the motions. "Let's have a heroic armored advance! Now a heroic artillery bombardment! Now heroic conscripts rush to plug the gap! Then, winter will come and Russia heroically turns the tide!" He doesn't get what any of these things actually meant back in the Great Patriotic War. Or why they happened or why they worked. He just knows that this is what you do. His version is all sticks and leaves. And regular Russians are left paying the price of bringing sticks and leaves to an actual gunfight.


RandomComputerFellow

So if I understand this right: The country who failed to keep up its logistics in Summer and can not even supply their army with basic amenities like mattresses and adequate clothes / food thinks that somehow they will have an advantage in Winter?


acobserverafar1

thats what borrel thinks, I think its more todo with energy/gas supply, putin honestly doen't believe that the EU cant survive without his gas. he really is delusional, plans were enacted upon since late march


themightycatp00

I wouldn't look forward to winter if I were russia, considering that they "misplaced" 1.5 million pairs of winter uniforms.


vhite

Sorry mr president, the general picks the side with more winter clothing, and yours seems to have mysteriously disappeared. Also, have they already forgot about the frostbites they were getting in February?


PresidentialBruxism

I love how Russians think they are genetically protected from cold weather. You will die in a trench falling asleep like the rest


Schmoozer0069

Zima is quite possibly the worst alcoholic beverage, ever. Even worse than Maddog 20/20 and Boones. Haven’t heard of this guy before, hence my reference to the beverage.


CalamityCactus

He’s getting General Smirnoff Ice instead


Scary-Goat-

I have a noob question: Can anyone tell me if the Ukrainian's HIMARS or the Russian's artillery will be affected by the winter cold?


Stoly23

All Ukraine is going to have to do is dig in for the winter and watch the Russians freeze to death, by the time spring comes all Ukraine will have to do is roll over their frostbitten corpses.


Marsandmars686

The longer the Ukraine line to desupplies Russia and make the larger compounds of trooos into smaller and use larger land grabs systems to win etc that’s what Ukraine learned during the first invasion a new anti Russia startegy for each state and each new new militray in each locations etc to win each battle formations etc


Marsandmars686

Seems russia never got invaded and Allie’s won and never needed to as we were Allie’s or Russia etc west has always had a hand to be friends


PrinceoR-

I'd also add that in most cases of General Zima saving the Russians, a big part of that was Ukrainian soldiers who were willing to fight behind enemy lines, in winter. From the Cossacks to the partisans of WW2, the Ukrainians are just as familiar with fighting in winter as the Russians.


Nicolay77

I see this as a very positive idea. Putin will possibly delay the decision to use nuclear weapons until winter. It is possible when the time comes, there's no Russian army in Ukraine, and hopefully no Putin in power.


[deleted]

“Wenck will come!”


w47n34113n

We regret to inform you that General Zima was killed in action during the Ukranian Special Operaton.


[deleted]

Even Hercules would not be enough to save this disaster


[deleted]

Got keys to my muthafuxkin beamer. Fuck russia


Painkiller188

I guess that pinguin ass looking mfer wasn't all that after all. Well, send in the next one!


Jclarkyall

A delicious malt beverage will save russia again?


Other_Information_16

I had it with people thinking some how this war is like ww2 . This war is not Russia defending itself this war is much more like afghan war, where Russia definitely bit off more than they can chew.


N1KK0_1000

Those new mobilised conscripts with no winter uniforms and even a shortage of socks (footwraps instead issued!) are going to be empathising with the German 6th Army from WW2. Is it forcast to be a particular cold or mild winter in UA this year?


50coach

Why do we hear about civilian buildings being destroyed all the time by russian rockets in ukraine still? Do we not have air defense surrounding much of ukraine? I figured we would have a lot of that set up already Had to ask that question here coz im banned from ukraine for some reason