Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

marathag

Banned
Ah, Watney's Party Seven and similar from other brewers. Takes me back to student parties in the 1970s. BYOB, cheap Hirondelle (?) British "wine" made from grape concentrates. Blue Nun and Black Tower as the "sophisticated" choice of the relatively well heeled.

Not particularly nostalgic for them mind you. Or at least not the booze, clothes and food. The music and female company maybe.
If you remember the '70s well, you really weren't partying enough back then. I have many gaps in my memories.....

and it was comforting to know, that anything you could contract, would be fixed with Penicillin shots. Drugs could fix -everything-
Booze was OK, but Beer was terrible- but not a great loss to me, as I never cared for it, and still don't. I don't miss that there was a lot of drunks around, Drunk Driving was really common .
 
Ah, Watney's Party Seven and similar from other brewers. Takes me back to student parties in the 1970s. BYOB, cheap Hirondelle (?) British "wine" made from grape concentrates. Blue Nun and Black Tower as the "sophisticated" choice of the relatively well heeled.

Not particularly nostalgic for them mind you. Or at least not the booze, clothes and food. The music and female company maybe.
 
How many tanks were sent to the soviet Union?

Cause if it were up to me they'd get 50 a month and told "you started the war on the Germans side so you know how they fight, deal with them yourself"

But then I'm very much of the opinion that helping them with anything is a futile waste of resources and that surely anyone else could have seen that as well.
And anyone that does seems them assistance in peacetime is a traitor and in wartime as a "not really an ally" the assistance sent is sent by a fool.

They don't need the help, they'll never credit you for the help, they'll complain about the help and after the war they will be your enemy the first moment they can be.
 
British strategy was to fight using money and industry rather than men, wherever possible.

Supplying the Soviets with weapons to kill Nazis with weakens the primary enemy of the UK without also killing British soldiers in the process.

Debating numbers and priorities is valid, but the basic principle of the UK shipping substantial war materiel to the Soviet Union is basically a given from the moment Barbarossa kicks off.
 
British strategy was to fight using money and industry rather than men, wherever possible.

Supplying the Soviets with weapons to kill Nazis with weakens the primary enemy of the UK without also killing British soldiers in the process.

Debating numbers and priorities is valid, but the basic principle of the UK shipping substantial war materiel to the Soviet Union is basically a given from the moment Barbarossa kicks off.
I suppose, doesn't mean I like it.

And it certainly shouldn't be at the expense of the british fighting men.
 
British strategy was to fight using money and industry rather than men, wherever possible.

Supplying the Soviets with weapons to kill Nazis with weakens the primary enemy of the UK without also killing British soldiers in the process.

Debating numbers and priorities is valid, but the basic principle of the UK shipping substantial war materiel to the Soviet Union is basically a given from the moment Barbarossa kicks off.
Actually, it was to atack Germany in any way possible. The problem was that Britain did not have a way of getting to grips with Germany in such a way that she had a reasonable chance of success until 1944, except for aerial bombardment and command o raids- both of which were very expensive in trained manpower. Britain attacked Germany on the mainland of Europe as soon as she practicably could.
 
According to Red Army Tanks of World War II the British & Canadians sent 5,193 tanks (of which 4,483 actually arrived) and US tanks sent as Lend-Lease totalled 1,682 light (1,239 arrived) & 5,374 mediums (4,957 arrived).
Except the time it would take to retool US factories to build Soviet equipment and spare parts could mean that the Soviets are defeated before any deliveries are made.

Very true that the timing of the Aid to the Soviets is key
and the period of maximum danger is (iOTL at least ) from July 41 to Dec 42.

However in this period, American Material was not a significant factor in avoiding a Soviet defeat.
America did begin considering aiding the USSR quite quickly after Barbarossa started
but started slowly by first allowing outright purchases (which the Soviets could barely afford)
then extending limited credit facilities (which did allow some deals)
and only added Russia to the Lend part of Aid in November 41.
However, after Pearl Harbor, all plans were scrapped for the time being.
In fact, much of the Material bought was redirected to equipping the forces America was urgently raising!

For the first 12 months, aid to Russia came almost entirely from Britain and its Empire delivered from Late summer 41.
It was at all levels - tanks, planes, raw materials even some machine tools.
Most manufactured items were made in Britain (like Hurricanes)
though some were American built materials (like P-40 models) that had been bought for British or allied use but redirected by Britain to the Soviets.

In terms of the eventual volume delivered, this initial surge was quite small and of lower grade kit
but it was at a vital time following huge losses and before Russia's own production, especially the factories relocated in the wake of Barbarossa,
could deliver the better Russian designs (like the T-34) , at least not in the required quantity and by most reports quality was awful

It was only in 1943 when the production lines in the USA were really rolling that Russia got priority
particularly for base materials and logistics vehicles like lorries etc.

IMHO it is fair to say that British Aid to Russia was more responsible for avoiding the USSR's defeat in 1941 and 1942
while Russia's own production allowed them to hold the line in 1943
and American Aid to Russia was a significant part in ensuring their victories in 1944 & 45

I used to have access to quite a detailed paper on how important British tanks and planes were in the period Nov 41 to Nov 42 but lost it when I retired.
The best I can do now is this article which touches on the highlights


basically, 30% plus of the medium/Heavy tanks defending Moscow in the winter 41-2 were British supplied
as were 15% of the effective fighters plus others covering the vital Northern ports

Note: this is a direct copy of material I have posted before on other threads that underrate the importance of British aid to the USSR
 
Last edited:

basically 30% plus of the medium/Heavy tanks defending Moscow in the winter 41-2 were British supplied
as were 15% of the effective fighters plus others covering the vital Northern ports

Note: this is a direct copy of material I have posted before on other threads that underrate the importance odf British aid to the USSR
And here I'd expect it to be slightly higher.
 
Also means a slower Russian advance hopefully may allow the Western allies to get all the way to Berlin before the russians! Or am I going into ASB territory here?
 
Or am I going into ASB territory here?
Not ASB, merely improbable. Alien Space Bats requires a sequence of events that violate physics or causality in some way (usually time travel from what I can tell), not merely something with very long odds.
I would say that the WAllies reaching Berlin while the Soviets are still in Poland is edging on Wank territory, but it's contingent on plenty of factors this timeline hasn't reached yet.
 
Not ASB, merely improbable. Alien Space Bats requires a sequence of events that violate physics or causality in some way (usually time travel from what I can tell), not merely something with very long odds.
I would say that the WAllies reaching Berlin while the Soviets are still in Poland is edging on Wank territory, but it's contingent on plenty of factors this timeline hasn't reached yet.
There does seem to be a Board Consensus that at some point the implausibility of a POD (or series of them) makes a given event so improbable that it is de facto ASB. As in "it would be easier to believe that an ASB done it" than believe in the outcome.

I don't think anyone has defined the Improbability Factor involved though.
 
There does seem to be a Board Consensus that at some point the implausibility of a POD (or series of them) makes a given event so improbable that it is de facto ASB. As in "it would be easier to believe that an ASB done it" than believe in the outcome.

I don't think anyone has defined the Improbability Factor involved though.
IMO, something that would require a significant break of personality in one or many people, such as Hitler deciding to free the Jews, or the Japanese pulling out of FIC would come close.
 
IMO, something that would require a significant break of personality in one or many people, such as Hitler deciding to free the Jews, or the Japanese pulling out of FIC would come close.
Yes, that works. People taking decisions that are totally against their mindset or personality (as far as we know them) for no plausible reason.
 
Bear in mind that OTL the boundaries between Soviet and Western allies were decided at Yalta in early 1945. Changing the boundaries requires either a different agreement at ATL Yalta conference or an alternate conference.
I suspect the military positions would need to be quite different to make a substantial change from OTL, if only because original borders and convenient border-indicating features like rivers will be unchanged.
 
Top