Was Lend-Lease Really that Important?
Michael C
the US lend-lease to Britain is the most over-stated aspect of the American
war effort and contributed only about a 4th of British munitions in 1943-44.
Does anyone share or sympathise with this or have any further reading on the
matter? I have read Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze but that is
concentrated on the Nazi economy and doesn't go too in-depth about
lend-lease.
Don Phillipson
news:7o81i1F...@mid.individual.net...
> During a WWII discussion on another forum someone brought up the point
that
> the US lend-lease to Britain is the most over-stated aspect of the
American
> war effort and contributed only about a 4th of British munitions in
1943-44.
That is what the current Wikipedia article says: "In 1943-44, about a
fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease." This figure seems
about right,
cf. the US-built Sherman's being the Allies main battle tank from the
Italian campaign onward and the USA (by agreement) the only big
producer of transport aircraft (DC-3, Curtiss Commando etc.,
later DC-4.) Lend-Lease vehicles included trucks and locomotives.
Lend-Lease also included strategic materials (e.g. oil) and food, which
were obviously accounted for differently. No official history of wartime
British production and the Ministry of Supply ever appeared (perhaps
because in 1946 the MoS was reorganized to run the British nuclear
power programme inter alia) but the gap was later partly remedied in
a government-sponsored history of lend-lease, see:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-WarEcon/UK-Civil-WarEcon-9.html
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
David H Thornley
> During a WWII discussion on another forum someone brought up the point
> that the US lend-lease to Britain is the most over-stated aspect of the
> American war effort and contributed only about a 4th of British
> munitions in 1943-44.
>
about March 1941. It wasn't overwhelming, but significant. (Bear in
mind that LL deliveries started long after March 1941, as there was a
whole lot of bought-and-paid-for stuff in the pipeline. The first
actual contribution that comes to mind is Sherman tanks for Montgomery's
attack at El Alamein.)
It varied by category. The British had a lot of US tanks and US-built
ships (mostly amphibious, cargo, and convoy escort types), and almost
no US artillery.
Lend-Lease was very useful for the Soviets. It didn't win the war
for them, because it didn't start coming in quantity until after
the Soviets were out of immediate danger, but it was vital to
throwing the Germans out of the Soviet Union.
Another mistake is to consider Lend-Lease to be fundamentally
unselfish. LL stuff could only be used in the interests of the
US, and giving materiel to our allies reduced our overall casualties.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
WaltBJ
these numbers by themselves don't seem to mean much but I should think
a 25% cut in munitions would be significant. But - how about food and
fuel?
BTW I have just received a copy of "Audit of War' by Correlli Barnett
- haven't started reading it yet but I suspect it will have a bearing
on this thread.
Walt BJ
Rich Rostrom
> During a WWII discussion on another forum someone brought up the point that
> the US lend-lease to Britain is the most over-stated aspect of the American
> war effort and contributed only about a 4th of British munitions in 1943-44.
>
> Does anyone share or sympathise with this or have any further reading on the
> matter?
One quarter of all munitions is a lot.
Lend-Lease provided over 23,000 aircraft,
of which over 7,000 were multi-engine;
about 1/5 of total British and Commonwealth
aircraft through the entire war.
Lend-Lease provided 17,000 Sherman tanks.
Also, Lend-Lease provided Britain with
_38_ CVEs, compared to only 5 built by
Britain herself (and another 20 conversions
that carried only 4 aircraft).
Some Americans may exaggerate the importance
of Lend-Lease, but it's really difficult to
to do so.
Alan
Don't forget the huge number of cargo ships that were required to send
the LL material over seas.
As was already mentioned, there was also an import program that was
quite large. This included food, fuel and raw materials for British
industry.
"History of USN Operations in WWII" Vol 15 contains a table of all USN
vessels transferred under LL to foreign nations. The UK received 886
ships and craft ranging from the afore mentioned CVEs to yard craft.
In detail there were 38 CVEs, 9 SSs, 78 destroyer escorts, 232 patrol
types, 117 PT boats, 69 auxiliaries, 4 Landing Ship Docks, 113 LSTs,
220 LCILs and 6 yard craft.
The US Maritime Commission allocated a substantial number of ships to
the British Ministry of War Transportation.
Alan
Alan
> The US Maritime Commission allocated a substantial number of ships to
> the British Ministry of War Transportation.
The numbers for this are 174 EC2 Liberty ships, {I'm not positive
about this number, but I think it's close} 23 C1 small ocean cargo
ships, 35 N3 coastal cargo ships, 20 T1 small tankers, 12 V3 tugs & 26
V2 tugs. Total, 290 ships. This is data is from the "Permanent Report
of Completed Ship Construction Contracts" by the Maritime Commission
dated 1/1/46.
Alan
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
C) wrote:
> and contributed only about a 4th of British munitions in 1943-44.
You seem to be missing the fuel and food that was also supplied under
Lend Lease. The US supplied just about all the 100+ Octane aviation fuel
used by the Allies. Mind you Hoover apparently had missed the point that
the US was supplying food under Lend Lease as well. British rations were
actually reduced after the end of the war until a dollar loan could be
arranged to pay for US food imports.
The figures I remember indicates that about one third of the total
material used by the UK and Empire during the war came from the US
either paid for under "cash and carry" or under Lend Lease. This ignores
the indirect aid we got such as US commercial shipping in Atlantic
Convoys. These shifted goods from Canada as well as the US.
Ken Young
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:7o81i1F...@mid.individual.net...
> that the US lend-lease to Britain is the most over-stated aspect of the
> American war effort and contributed only about a 4th of British munitions
> in 1943-44.
Most over stated depends on who is doing the stating.
The amount of lend-lease support was important, both in terms of
quantity and things being ready for use. One of the problems in
economic terms is defining how important the aid was. For example
a large tank factory in the UK would need some air defences, a
similar one in the US none. So the UK "saves" more than just the
workforce at the tank factory.
All up around $30 billion, less about $2 billion in reverse lend-lease,
is the total for the British Empire. $9 billion in 1943 and 10.8 billion
in 1944.
Note Canada ran a similar program.
In 1944 the UK produced 26,461 aircraft, imported another 5,667
from North America, plus had another 5,757 US aircraft delivered
to overseas commands. For 1943 the figures were 26,263, 2,418
and 4,292 respectively.
So lend-lease was important, it did not save the UK or USSR but it
did enable them to much better take the fight up to the axis powers.
> Does anyone share or sympathise with this or have any further reading on
> the matter? I have read Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze but that is
> concentrated on the Nazi economy and doesn't go too in-depth about
> lend-lease.
British War Economy by Hancock and Gowing.
North American Supply by H Duncan Hall, which includes things like the
Lend-Lease master agreement and Lend-Lease settlement agreement as
appendices. This concentrates on things like the mechanisms to decide
priorities and allocations.
Studies of Overseas Supply by Hall and Wrigley.
The above are the UK Official Histories.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Don Phillipson
news:ceb0cb7b-583a-4ebd...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Only 25%? That means without Lend-Lease they would have had 75% -
> these numbers by themselves don't seem to mean much but I should think
> a 25% cut in munitions would be significant. But - how about food and
fuel?
When assessing percentages like this, we need to avoid
mechanistic uniformity, e.g.:
1. If we start to fly across the ocean with only 75 per
cent of the necessary fuel, we do not "get three quarters
of the way:" we fall into the ocean and are 100% removed
from the strength.
2. If we go into the field with 75 per cent of the necessary
rations and ammunition, we do not "fight with 75%
efficiency:" we fight against odds, and grow progressively
weaker, thus vulnerable to 100% destruction.
Suppy Corps officers know this, and so we hope do political
leaders with strategic responsibilities. The first fact about
the UK as a war-making state in the 20th century was that
its domestic sources of fuel oil were practically zero.
SolomonW
> North American Supply by H Duncan Hall, which includes things like the
> Lend-Lease master agreement and Lend-Lease settlement agreement as
> appendices. This concentrates on things like the mechanisms to decide
> priorities and allocations.
A substantial portion of Lend-Lease goods were for items that the British
did not have.
Another observation I would make is that an overall percentages gives in
this context a misleading figure. One component might only be small
percentage of the overall product but it may not work at all without that
component eg oil for a plane,
WaltBJ
US shipped 14 million tons of steel to England . . . without which the
RN would have been critically short of warships and the RAF hangar -
his comments.
Nor would the English have enjoyed Spam and powdered eggs. Powdered
eggs mixed with powdered milk make pretty good scrambled eggs.
Powdered eggs mixed with water come out sort of greenish and aren't
all that good. A pretty good sandwich is thin slices of Spam fried,
scrambled eggs and salsa. "Hunger does make the ebst sauce, though."
Note that that 100 octane aviation fuel made the RAF's Merlin engines
hum. Later on it was the purple stuff - 130-145 octane.
Walt BJ
William Black
> Nor would the English have enjoyed Spam and powdered eggs. Powdered
> eggs mixed with powdered milk make pretty good scrambled eggs.
I have just talked to my aged mother on the telephone.
No they don't...
They just look like pretty good scrambled eggs.
> Powdered eggs mixed with water come out sort of greenish and aren't
> all that good. A pretty good sandwich is thin slices of Spam fried,
> scrambled eggs and salsa.
Salsa was unknown in the UK before about 1985, and frying fat was rationed.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> WaltBJ wrote:
> > Nor would the English have enjoyed Spam and powdered eggs. Powdered
> > eggs mixed with powdered milk make pretty good scrambled eggs.
> I have just talked to my aged mother on the telephone.
> No they don't...
Depends on who you talk to; my father-in-law first had some of these things
during the American Occupation. The first time he tried the standard C-rations,
he thought they were the best things he'd ever had.
I suppose a ~1,000 calorie/day diet can do that to you.
Mike
WaltBJ
in abeyance until you all have read and digested "Audit of War" by
Correlli Barnett. First published by Macmillan in 1986, reprinted
twice in 1986. ISBN 0-333-35376-5.
It is quite detailed and also shows why Lend-Lease was an absolute
necessity.
Walt BJ
Stephen
some ships - frigates or similar - that were about to be delivered to
the UK. Looking at the ships he muttered loudly, "Cheap and nasty".
The shocked US representative challenged Churchill's comment.
Churchill turned to him and said, "Cheap for us and nasty for the Hun".
Alan
following small amphib craft as LL to the RN.
599 LCP(L) - Landing Craft Personnel (Large) - 36'8"
413 LCP(R) - Landing Craft Personnel (Ramp) - 35'10"
320 LCVP - Landing Craft Vehicle / Personnel - 36'0"
671 LCM - Landing Craft Mechanized - Mk 2 45'0" & Mk 3 50'0"
2003 Total Landing Craft
886 [from the first post]
290 [from the second post]
3179 Grand total
Alan
Steven Schmid
(in article
<78c49311-bf49-457d...@t12g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>):
Folks:
I misplaced the original post, but I've mentioned before in this group that
you can go to the Studebaker museum right here in South Bend, Indiana, and
see a truck built by Studebaker. The sign identifies that 250,000 of them
were sent to Russia during WWII in the lend-lease program.
Now that's just one company in one little town. But give the Germans a
quarter million trucks for logistics and they probably beat Russia.
Others have made the followup point that the Russians could prioritize tank
production because of gifts like these.
Was lend lease really that important? Yes, it was.
Best Regards,
Steve Schmid