M3 halftrack.....for russians? -1 reply

Please wait...

MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#21 15 years ago

lets add two new words to our vocab today. lend and lease.

ok class, now define those words is a sentence. "the usa, through the lend lease program gave the Soviet Union many AFVs, including the M3 Halftrack." Gooo! Now, teach cheasemancrusader what that means! i dunno, thatll be hard.




cheesemancrusader

GF best viewed w/ pants off

50 XP

23rd February 2004

0 Uploads

327 Posts

0 Threads

#22 15 years ago

I are no good at having learned




Meadow

You might very well think that

50 XP

21st February 2004

0 Uploads

3,000 Posts

0 Threads

#23 15 years ago
Anlushac11And Im sick and f$%ing tired of people trying to downplay any help the Soviets recieved from US or Britain or they say the help they recieved didnt matter. Im not saying it won the war but some here dont even want its existence acknowledged. Is it really that hard on Russian pride to admit they accepted help? Facts are facts. Deal with it. Russians recieved equipment and vehicles and they used it, bitching about Russians using US or Brit equipemnt doesnt change the fact that the equipment was used. People have bitched about the Matilda II and Churchill being on FH Russian maps. The fact was they were used.

Your point being? Good post, but by no means relevant to me.




Count Nosferatu

The Count Stalks...

50 XP

22nd February 2004

0 Uploads

2,100 Posts

0 Threads

#24 15 years ago
Comrade0RedLeave the M3s for the Russians. They used a lot of them. The two truely usefull things the Americans gave the Russians were the Studabaker truck and the M3 and M5s

And the Jeep. The US gave the Russians more Non fighting vehicles than they produced. If anyone wants any figures I'll be more than happy to post them when I get back. And at least 66% of Russian tank brigades had Lend Lease tanks in them [some, although about 10% or so consisted entirely of LL tanks]. Keep the M3.. it's accurate and changing it would be a complete and utter waste of time. Shame it sucks so bad but....




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#25 15 years ago
MeadowYour point being? Good post, but by no means relevant to me.

It wasnt directly aimed at you, I was just commenting on the topic.

And Count Nosferatu, that number of 66% seems just a bit way too high.

The Russians only recieved in total roughly 8,000 US and Brit tanks the whole war and thats alot less than the 45,000 or so T-34's and 2500 IS-2's.




unrealgama

In game name:*TRA*M.Szt.Kol.Kl

50 XP

27th May 2004

0 Uploads

281 Posts

0 Threads

#26 15 years ago

i just have to make one point if the americans or british hadof had as many troupes as the russians its more than likely they would have had a vehicle shortage 2. its a fact the russians had well i dont know the number but like 2,3,4mabey 5 times the troupes the americans had?




Count Nosferatu

The Count Stalks...

50 XP

22nd February 2004

0 Uploads

2,100 Posts

0 Threads

#27 15 years ago
Anlushac11It wasnt directly aimed at you, I was just commenting on the topic. And Count Nosferatu, that number of 66% seems just a bit way too high. The Russians only recieved in total roughly 8,000 US and Brit tanks the whole war and thats alot less than the 45,000 or so T-34's and 2500 IS-2's.

BUMP! Apologies all Nope got my figures mixed up [teaches me for posting facts while at work w/o my books]. 66% of Soviet tank brigades had soley SOVIET tanks The rest had some or all LL tanks




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#28 15 years ago
Anlushac11 People have bitched about the Matilda II and Churchill being on FH Russian maps. The fact was they were used.

What maps are those? Not calling bulls**t, I'm genuinely curious :D




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#29 15 years ago
SkipsterWhat maps are those? Not calling bulls**t, I'm genuinely curious :D

M3 Grant, Matilda II,and Churchill were all lend lease tanks that fought at Kursk with the Russians and never fails someone complains about British tanks being on a Russian map, saying their should only be Russian vehicles. The point was its historical fact. they were there.




Meadow

You might very well think that

50 XP

21st February 2004

0 Uploads

3,000 Posts

0 Threads

#30 15 years ago
Anlushac11It wasnt directly aimed at you, I was just commenting on the topic. And Count Nosferatu, that number of 66% seems just a bit way too high. The Russians only recieved in total roughly 8,000 US and Brit tanks the whole war and thats alot less than the 45,000 or so T-34's and 2500 IS-2's.

OK, no need to quote me then. :deal: