Comments by "John Burns" (@johnburns4017) on "Did the Soviets win WW2 due to US Support? The Impact of Lend-Lease" video.

  1. The British were to discontinue the Valentine tank. The Soviets found it very useful and insisted the production line was kept open for them. Production was shifted to Canada with the Canadians using an engine sourced south of their border for ease of supply.
    124
  2. Dee Oh Dee "The importance of Lend Lease to Soviet military capacity cannot be underestimated." It should not be overestimated either.
    8
  3.  @nickdanger3802  Rambo, the British also rejected British tanks in 1943, bringing out the Cromwell, Comet, Centurion, Firefly. The Churchill was under powered but more armour was added to the equal to a Tiger. Then they destroyed 90% of German armour in the west.
    4
  4.  @kurousagi8155  It is simple. How much hardware have you made? How much came from the USA? What is that percentage?
    4
  5.  @nickdanger3802  Rambo, US supplies to Britain in WW2 was only 11%, with Soviet 5%, downgraded to 3% after Soviet archives were made public. Great shakes eh?
    2
  6.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  Again: In the vital Battle of Moscow the British provided 40% of the Soviet tanks. The Russian were given old cast off Spitfires. They did not have the maintenance backup with the pilots unfamiliar with them. The Spitfire shot down more planes than any other type in WW2. You have been told about making things up.
    2
  7.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  You have been told about making things up.
    2
  8.  @nickdanger3802  Rambo, was there any point to this post?
    1
  9.  @kurousagi8155  That is one way of looking at it. Postan in British War Production and Harrison of Warwick University look at it differently.
    1
  10.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  "the Valentine tank. The Soviets found it very useful and insisted the production line was kept open for them."
    1
  11.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  Repeating it makes it very true.
    1
  12.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  I would say it louder as well, as it makes an effect on the ignorant.
    1
  13.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  I do not believe, I know.
    1
  14.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  Facts are wonderful things.
    1
  15.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  Because the USSR was a much bigger country. Did you know that?
    1
  16.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  Supplies to Britain in WW2 was only 11% (Postan British War Production). That was including normal pre war trade which after 1939 the USA then classed as aiding Britain. Soviet supplies 5%, downgraded to 3% after Soviet archives were made public. No great shakes .
    1
  17.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  Britain provided the US in Britain in 1942 with 70% of their needed, even 500 Spitfires. Overall from 1942 to 1945, the British provided 30% of their needs. In the vital Battle of Moscow the British provided 40% of the the Soviet tanks.
    1
  18.  @diehardsmokerbuddy  You must stop making things up.
    1