Russian industrial effort?

[Egorka]

@Chevan

Good matter mate and nice mathematic calculation;)
i did not know the allies food supply was able to feed only 3,4 mln i.e. 2% of population of USSR.
But i think our western friends might ask is it right to count just the weight of food without its quality and caloricity.
I know for sure the allues supplied not the potatoes and the bread but mostly tushenka, canned foods, concentrated milk and even natural fruit juices. I think this is a little more importaint products then the simple bread?
I think the 20 grams of fresh juice for the soviet soldier per day is not bed:)
Certainly this is not equal the 20 grams of vodka or spirit but definitely not bed too;)

Chevan,

You are absolutelly correct on the matter that the calorific value is important, maybe even more important than the pure weight.

The reason why I did not mention it (I actually did mention it before in this comment: “First quarter 1943, app. 17% of food (by calorific value) that was consumed by RKKA was from US supply.”) is because wanted to keep my post as short and focused as possible AND this will not change significantly the picture. But since you mentioned it, I will elaborate on it.

In the same article (Gosh! I had to go to the library again! ) there is the US deliveries split per food category:

                                 [b]Arrived by   % of total [/b]
                        [b][u]Shipped[/u]   [u]20sep45[/u]     [u]arrieved shipmen[/u][/b]
1  Weat,grains,flour    1209211   1154180       27,0%
2  Sugar                 703079    672429       15,7%
3  Meat canned and dry   822510    782973       18,3%
4  Fats, smoked meat     767339    730902       17,1%
5  Vegitable oil         521195    517522       12,1%
6  Milk,dry fruits,vegi  384712    362421        8,5%
7  Fruits,beverages    [u]   67591[/u]   [u]  61483[/u]        1,4%
   [b]total metric tonns:  4475637   4281910[/b]

The calorific value of Fats is app 2,25 times higher than on proteins and carbohydrates (9 kcal/g versus 4 kcal/g).

As you see from the table the fat rich categories (3,4,5) constituted 47,4% of the total tonnage. So you could say that the actuall energetic value of the food from US lend-lease was app. 1,6 times higher than compared to pure bread and vegitable diet. But this is an absolut top estimate. The real impact was somewhat lower, because Soviet sitizens still had some fats in the died from the local sources plus canned meat does not only consist of fats and therefor has lower average energy value.
Lets take this coefficient to be 1,4.

So now you can take the values for extra food per day and number of people fed by only lend-lease food and multiply by 1,4. Result:

[ul]
[li]32 gramm - average extra food per day per person. [/li][li]4,8 mil - people that could be fed only by lend-lease help from USA[/li][/ul]

As I said it does NOT change the situation.

[Digger]

I think the point is being missed here. The mere fact food was being shipped under Lend Lease is an indicator the US wanted the Soviet Union to stay in the war and that any amount of shipped food would be beneficial.

However there is no way the US could have supplied the Soviet Union a far greater percentage of her food needs. It would have been physically impossible, due to the demands already placed on US food production by other Allies, the US military and the US civilian population.

I believe under the circumstances it was a substantial effort.

Regards digger.

[pdf27]

@alephh

Soviet Union stopped building tractors in many places to build battle tanks, their economy would have been ruined but luckily allied shipped in tractors.

Soviet Union stopped building locomotives pretty much completely to build battle tanks, their economy and transport system would have been ruined, but luckily allied shipped in locomotives.

The same thing goes with almost anything.

And several natural resources were also shipped to Soviet Union, enabling them to focus on thing or two.

Yes, Soviet Union built a lot of battle tanks, but 100% of their population would have died without allied food, natural resources, trucks, locomotives, tractors, etc etc etc etc etc etc. because they completely ignored basic needs of society/economy.

That wasn’t luck, it was Lend-Lease. The Soviets structured their wartime production to take advantage of it, knowing that the US would make good the difference as per their agreements. The Soviets were far less efficient at producing food and tractors than they were at producing tanks, thus the US shipped in food and tractors and the Soviets produced and manned the tanks.

As mentioned in the more recent posts, Lend-Lease wasn’t all that high a proportion of Soviet production. However, it was frequently tailored to fill in gaps where Soviet production was inefficient, disrupted by the German invasion or the US just had a plain better product (Studebaker trucks are one of the very few examples to spring to mind). The net result was that lend-lease freed up more workers than would otherwise be assumed - workers who went on to do things that the Soviets were good at.

[Chevan]

@Egorka

So now you can take the values for extra food per day and number of people fed by only lend-lease food and multiply by 1,4. Result:

[ul]
[li]32 gramm - average extra food per day per person.
[/li][li]4,8 mil - people that could be fed only by lend-lease help from USA
[/li][/ul]

As I said it does NOT change the situation.

Well i have to conclude you right Egorka.
Sure the 4.8 million peoples which could be feeded by the ONLY lend-lise supplies is a much but TOO unessential in the scale of USSR.
BTW do you have the simular statistic figures about industry lend-lise supplies to the USSR.
As we already know the lion part of lend lise went to the Britain ( about 63%) and the USSR has got only 24%.Its interesting to compare what role had played the lend lise in the war production of both USSR and Britain.
And what was more effective as lend-lise contribution to the victory- the Read Armies Studebacers or British strategic bombers B-17? I mean in the realation price/effectiveness?

[Chevan]

@Digger

I think the point is being missed here. The mere fact food was being shipped under Lend Lease is an indicator the US wanted the Soviet Union to stay in the war and that any amount of shipped food would be beneficial.

However there is no way the US could have supplied the Soviet Union a far greater percentage of her food needs. It would have been physically impossible, due to the demands already placed on US food production by other Allies, the US military and the US civilian population.

I believe under the circumstances it was a substantial effort.

Regards digger.

Well i’am agree mate.
The USA made everything possible to supply the USSR and Briitain as much as they could.I have no claims for them.
But here we have discussed the mistaken point of our finnish friend - that without lend-lise supplies the 100% of soviet population would innevitably died from hunger.
Becouse the food part of lend lise was a big but no more than the 3% of soviet food production during the war.
Unfortinatelly this point that seriously overesimates the lend lise is not rare in the west.People simply does not know the exact statistic and used mostly propogandic matter of Cold war.
Honestly speaking sometimes in Russia we hears the strongly opposite wrong point that understimates the lend lise role. This is also wrong.

[Rising_Sun]

One point that hasn’t been covered is where the lend lease food went.

Priority was usually given to feeding the troops*, whether through cooked meals or ration packs.

If the food shipped to the USSR was going primarily to the troops, or even workers in critical industries, and bearing in mind its higher calorific value, it might have had a greater impact on the war effort than if it was distributed randomly among civilians who weren’t making as direct a contribution.

• The troops usually doubt they’re getting the best food, but this might be due to the ability of most armed service cooks to turn anything into tasteless mush. There’s an old exhange in the Australian services, and maybe in other nations’ services.

Q. “Who called the cook a bastard?”

A. “Who called the bastard a cook?”

[Chevan]

@Rising_Sun

One point that hasn’t been covered is where the lend lease food went.

Priority was usually given to feeding the troops*, whether through cooked meals or ration packs.

If the food shipped to the USSR was going primarily to the troops, or even workers in critical industries, and bearing in mind its higher calorific value, it might have had a greater impact on the war effort than if it was distributed randomly among civilians who weren’t making as direct a contribution.

You right the higher calorific ration could had a greater effect at the front.
But the problems is the lend lise shipped, it was not enought neither for the feeding the soviet troops nor for the critical industrials workers. Moreover why do you think the soviet product were the worst than the american.
As far i know the famouse soviet TUSHENKA( canned meat) was prodused at the USA on the soviet technology.( the special sobviet comission had visited the USA for it).
Certainly chocolate and juice was better then the soviet, but you could to feed the troops ONLY by it, right?

[Rising_Sun]

@Chevan

As far i know the famouse soviet TUSHENKA( canned meat) was prodused at the USA on the soviet technology.( the special sobviet comission had visited the USA for it).

Do you mean that America borrowed Soviet technology for producing this canned meat?

I don’t know that Russia would want to be held responsible internationally for the crime against humanity of showing America how to produce Spam.

Certainly chocolate and juice was better then the soviet, but you could to feed the troops ONLY by it, right?

This gets into an area I know nothing about.

What were Soviet troop rations in the field?

Fresh?

Tinned?

Dehydrated?

Ration packs?

Live off the enemy?

Live off the land?

[Chevan]

@Rising_Sun

Do you mean that America borrowed Soviet technology for producing this canned meat?

No they had own technology but specially for the USSR they developed the new tehnology according the soviet demands.

I don’t know that Russia would want to be held responsible internationally for the crime against humanity of showing America how to produce Spam.

Yea no you know it;)

This gets into an area I know nothing about.

What were Soviet troop rations in the field?

Fresh?

Tinned?

Dehydrated?

Ration packs?

Live off the enemy?

Live off the land?

Well in the best way the food of the Red Army soldier were a wheaten porridge with a tushenka, rye bread and (if he was lucky) a litlle butter.
Very tasteful indeed. In my army we has eat tushenka with everything- macaronis , knotgrass , potatoes - its very good food. In comparition with modern dehydrated and degreased so called “Ration packs”.

[Rising_Sun]

@Chevan

Well in the best way the food of the Red Army soldier were a wheaten porridge with a tushenka, rye bread and (if he was lucky) a litlle butter.
Very tasteful indeed. In my army we has eat tushenka with everything- macaronis , knotgrass , potatoes - its very good food. In comparition with modern dehydrated and degreased so called “Ration packs”.

Sounds pretty much like the Australian army rations in WWII (and WWI - some of our soldiers reckoned they were eating WWI supplies in WWII): bully beef and biscuits.

Bully beef was probably like tushenka. Canned meat. Allegedly. Like Spam, but not as good.

Biscuits were very hard wheat blocks. We had a version of them in field ration packs during the Vietnam war. Their principal value seemed to be in keeping army dentists in work. The only way I could eat them was to break them up with a bayonet and suck the pieces in my mouth for ages until they softened, or use them as a plate for other food and then break them up with a bayonet and suck the pieces in my mouth for ages until they softened. Using them as a plate for a three course meal didn’t seem to speed things up much.

[Egorka]

@Rising_Sun

One point that hasn’t been covered is where the lend lease food went.

Priority was usually given to feeding the troops*, whether through cooked meals or ration packs.

If the food shipped to the USSR was going primarily to the troops, or even workers in critical industries, and bearing in mind its higher calorific value, it might have had a greater impact on the war effort than if it was distributed randomly among civilians who weren’t making as direct a contribution.

Rising Sun,

The answer is more or less been given. I quote again from the artiqle:

First quarter 1943, app. 17% of food (by calorific value) that was consumed by RKKA was from US supply.

It is up to everyone’s consciousness to deside on the importance of amount of 17%.
My opinion, is that USSR should be VERY grateful, and USA should stop talking about the desisivness of the food help.

You are right that the lend-lease food went primarily to the troops. But it is just a matter of management. I guess it was easier to ship further already prepacked boxes right away from the ships.

If the food went 100% to civilians then equal amount of Soviet food would had to be sent to the frontline. This is much more costly as it would involve more transport and packeging matereials.

It does not matter how you split your money between your pockets - the total amount will not change!

[Egorka]

@Rising_Sun

Do you mean that America borrowed Soviet technology for producing this canned meat?

The soviets asked to change the recepy to fit the russian taste.

This gets into an area I know nthing about.

What were Soviet troop rations in the field?
Fresh?
Tinned?
Dehydrated?
Ration packs?
Live off the enemy?
Live off the land?

Again, read my posts! I spend much time writing them and double checking the information in them…

In the post #38 I put the link about the Soviet (and others) rations: http://17thdivision.tripod.com/id40.html

In the article "“Soviet Food Supply and Allied Aid in the War” it sais that Soviet soldiers food ration aproached that one of the American soldiers, partly thanks to the Lend-Lease help.

[Rising_Sun]

@Egorka

The soviets asked to change the recepy to fit the russian taste.

Wasn’t the taste bad enough already? Putting in more cabbage and potato couldn’t make it any better.

Again, read my posts! I spend much time writing them and double checking the information in them…

In the post #38 I put the link about the Soviet (and others) rations: http://17thdivision.tripod.com/id40.html

In the article "“Soviet Food Supply and Allied Aid in the War” it sais that Soviet soldiers food ration aproached that one of the American soldiers, partly thanks to the Lend-Lease help.

I’m grateful for your link, but it’s a re-enactor group who are relying on what the troops were supposed to get instead of what they actually got.

Allied frontline troops, certainly in the Pacific, rarely got what they were supposed to get for a range of reasons, mostly involving pilfereing by rear area troops and then difficulities in moving the remaining supplies forward. Did Soviet troops do any better?

[Digger]

You raise a good point RS. How much of the food did get through to the front lines. I know there were problems in the SW Pacific. My grandfather reckoned our army had it’s share of Golden Pheasants and some of the foodstuffs were pilfered on the wharves.

The Germans had similar problems with their Golden Pheasants and Black Market, so the question should be asked from our Russian friends. Are you blokes aware of any pilfering of the Soviet food supplies and if so, was it widespread or not?

Regards digger:)

[Egorka]

@Rising_Sun

I’m grateful for your link, but it’s a re-enactor group who are relying on what the troops were supposed to get instead of what they actually got.

Allied frontline troops, certainly in the Pacific, rarely got what they were supposed to get for a range of reasons, mostly involving pilfereing by rear area troops and then difficulities in moving the remaining supplies forward. Did Soviet troops do any better?

No, I doubt that the Soviets did better. But this does not matter in our discussion. If there was a shortage of food in a given area, then it was for all kinds of food: local and lend-lease.

I can not see how the shortages of food on th front bring up the contribution of the lend-lease food supplies.

[Egorka]

@Digger

The Germans had similar problems with their Golden Pheasants and Black Market, so the question should be asked from our Russian friends. Are you blokes aware of any pilfering of the Soviet food supplies and if so, was it widespread or not?

Regards digger:)

I do not know how widespread it was. I guess normally spread…
There was a black market of course, as well as normal market where peasants could sell they vegies. It was common to purchase extra food in addition to the state given food rations.
The salaries (depenfing on the place) would allow to purchase from 4kg (for unqualified worker) to 20kg (defence factory worker) of bread per month in addition to the state food ration.

But it is irrelevant to the assesment of the impact of lenf-lease food supplies.

[Egorka]

Actually I made a mistake… a bad one…
First of all the phisiological limit for a hard working man is 3000 kcal/day. I roughly corresponds to 0,4kg - 0,8kg of food_ depending on composition. The average value of US lend-lease food supply was 6,37 kcal/g. This means 0,471 kg of food per day.

And it was possible to feed every day:
[ul]
[li]1,5 mil (1% of population) during october 1941 - june 1942.[/li][li]5 mil (3,8% of population) during july 1942 - june 1943.[/li][li]9 mil (6,5% of population) during july 1943 - june 1944.[/li][li]7 mil (4,7% of population) during july 1944 - may 1945.[/li][/ul]

[Chevan]

@Egorka

And it was possible to feed every day:
[ul]
[li]1,5 mil (1% of population) during october 1941 - june 1942.
[/li][li]5 mil (3,8% of population) during july 1942 - june 1943.
[/li][li]9 mil (6,5% of population) during july 1943 - june 1944.
[/li][li]7 mil (4,7% of population) during july 1944 - may 1945.
[/li][/ul]

So as we could conclude from your post the food contribution of land-lise to the Soviet ability to fight were too little in the first critical period of Great Patriotic War( 1941-1942)
I think roughly no more the 1.5-2%.

[Egorka]

Chevan take a look at this info in russian about lend/Lease http://egorka-datskij.livejournal.com/

[Egorka]

Chevan, take a look at this info in russian. Scroll down to the part about Lend-Lease.
http://egorka-datskij.livejournal.com/