Wasn't it more?:Germany actually mobilized 17,9 million men
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
BTW - anyone has German tank production statistics by type (all types) for period 01.09.1939 - 31.12.1940 with monthly breakdown?
Wasn't it more?:Germany actually mobilized 17,9 million men
According to the link you posted:Domen121 wrote:Wasn't it more?:Germany actually mobilized 17,9 million men
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
BTW - anyone has German tank production statistics by type (all types) for period 01.09.1939 - 31.12.1940 with monthly breakdown?
this tell us little other then simply mobilized...does it refer to the number or % mobilized which would be used in actual combat...Guaporense wrote:According to the link you posted:Domen121 wrote:Wasn't it more?:Germany actually mobilized 17,9 million men
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
BTW - anyone has German tank production statistics by type (all types) for period 01.09.1939 - 31.12.1940 with monthly breakdown?
"Total in Wehrmacht Service 1939-1945: 17,893,200"
Yep, 17.9 million men. More than the US (they mobilized 16.2 million men).
Look at Jentz's Panzertruppen 1933-42.Domen121 wrote:BTW - anyone has German tank production statistics by type (all types) for period 01.09.1939 - 31.12.1940 with monthly breakdown?
Sigh. Here we go again.Guaporense wrote:According to the link you posted:Domen121 wrote:Wasn't it more?:Germany actually mobilized 17,9 million men
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
BTW - anyone has German tank production statistics by type (all types) for period 01.09.1939 - 31.12.1940 with monthly breakdown?
"Total in Wehrmacht Service 1939-1945: 17,893,200"
Yep, 17.9 million men. More than the US (they mobilized 16.2 million men).
1940 (June-December) - 470Guaporense wrote: 1942 - 4,524
1943 - 15,599
1944 - 24,015
Speer's Schnellberichte as of the end of January 1945 gave totals for the Ge7a, Ge7e, and Ge7es as:For Germany:
1941 - 14,200
1942 - 11,000
1943 - 11,600
1944 - 15,800
Yeah, but I suspect that US production in 1945 was greater, given that German production fell off after 8 May. It might be significant too that the US only had two torpedo arsenals functioning in 1941 (Alexandria was a storage facility after 1927 and did not resume manufacturing along with Newport and Keyport until refurbishing of the facilities was completed in 1942 and production by Pontiac Motors Division; the International Harvester Co; American Can Co. (Amtorp); Westinghouse Electric Corp.; Western Electric Co.; and General Electric Co. was phased in from 1942 on as well.In 1943 and 1944 the US produced more, but Germany produced slighly more torpedoes for the entire war.
Given that Germany's figure is actually a guess, why is that a problem? Some figures are given as rounds and totals are calculated from round weight, but other figures are for tons of propellent and explosive - does that get counted separately or is it included in the round weight? Compare what can be compared rather than assumed numbers.2- The ground artillery ammunition category was given by the Wartime Production Achievements page 108. I don't know how they separate ground from sea ammunition. I would like a simple big picture number like: munitions, tons, so I could directly compare to Germany's ~10 million ton number (I estimated that US production of "exploding" munitions (bombs, ammo) was between 11 and 12 million tons).
"Heavy artillery" is typically meant in the period to include guns of about 15cm and larger and howitzers of 155mm and larger. In the US system heavies were the 155mm M1 and M2 Gun, the 8" M2 Howitzer, the 8" M1 Gun, and the 240mm M1 Howitzer. In the German system heavies were the 15cm Kanone, the 17cm Kanone in Moerserlafette, the 21cm Moerser, and various small-production types such as the 21cm Kanone, 24cm Kanone, and similar.Guaporense wrote:I don't have exact data on the number of guns over 75mm that the US produced, but Germany produced 60,000 in 1944. The US apparently didn't produce such number of guns in 1944, but I don't have an exact number. Also, considering that you gave the extreme number of 17 centimeter calibre artillery, may you provide it?
Same projectile, different charge. Both were semi-fixed, but the M2 Howitzer had a base charge and six adjustable increments. The M1 & M2 Gun utilized a base charge and a single increment.LWD wrote:Didn't 155mm howitzers and 155mm guns use the same ammo? If the latter are considered "heavy" and the former aren't how do you tell which the ammo was made for? Also didn't some of the German railroad guns use the same ammo as thier naval guns?
I thought some claims had been made about production of ammo for "heavy artillery". I'm not sure how accurate such claims can be if the same round is used for heavy and non heavy guns. Likewise claims have been made about "ground artillery" and ammo production for the same. What then it the defintion of "ground artillery"? Certainly the rough numbers can be generated but some of the claims require a bit more detail than I'm seeing (at least those made by one poster in this thread).RichTO90 wrote:Same projectile, different charge. Both were semi-fixed, but the M2 Howitzer had a base charge and six adjustable increments. The M1 & M2 Gun utilized a base charge and a single increment.LWD wrote:Didn't 155mm howitzers and 155mm guns use the same ammo? If the latter are considered "heavy" and the former aren't how do you tell which the ammo was made for? Also didn't some of the German railroad guns use the same ammo as thier naval guns?
Heavy had less to do with the size and weight of the ammo than it did with the size and weight of the piece. An M2 155mm Gun weighed over 15 short tons (30,600 pounds) in march configuration, while an M2 155mm Howitzer weighed 6.5 tons (13,000 pounds).
Yes, railroad guns were often ex-naval weapons and I believe some of the German ones were, but I'm not sure why that is relevent?
...
Sure enough, but I wasn't posting information about bogus ammunition production claims; I was posting information about bogus and deceptive artillery production claims...LWD wrote:I thought some claims had been made about production of ammo for "heavy artillery". I'm not sure how accurate such claims can be if the same round is used for heavy and non heavy guns. Likewise claims have been made about "ground artillery" and ammo production for the same. What then it the defintion of "ground artillery"? Certainly the rough numbers can be generated but some of the claims require a bit more detail than I'm seeing (at least those made by one poster in this thread).
How did you arrive at that figure? have you considered the attrition rate of military horses? A good place to start your studies would be Heeresgruppe Mitte in the winter of 1941-1942. Come back and tell us what you've found out.Guaporense wrote:I think it is 2,7 million horses, not 6,7. The German army never had more than ca 1,2 million horses at the same time.bf109 emil wrote:lets not forget horse shoes as the German army employed over 6,700,000 horses during 1941-1945
I've put in more time than I care to remember splitting off Guaporense's insane and repetitive ideas to new threads, consolidated others into existing threads, as well as issued numerous topicality and sourcing warnings (particularly about giving precise sources, rather than just book/article titles) - all on top of usually participating in the discussions myself. My conscience is clean, although I am no longer a moderator here.RichTO90 wrote:...Mind you, given the habit of the OP to simply repost his disinformative, deceptive, out-dated, incomplete, and bogus figures in a new thread as if that magically suddenly makes them correct, I'm more than a little tired of chasing him down his rat- (sorry), rabbit-hole. Yes, I do understand the moderator attitude that the responses to such tripe do constitute valuable additions, but that doesn't help the poor person that pulls up the reams of carefully twisted factoids that comprise the OP's sum total of knowledge and assumes that because he posts so prolifically at this respected research site then his goofiness has some validity.
And, yes, I do sometimes dream that a moderator will have the balls to tell him to put up or shut up...to answer the many questions that he has dodged over the last months by taking the discussion to a new rat- (sorry again) rabbit-hole when challenged. Like that will ever happen...
Jon G. wrote:[While I would tend to dismiss the importance of horseshoes as an important item in the German military inventory, the need for horseshoes on a regular basis for the Wehrmacht's vast hordes of equines does leave room for some fascinating Guaporense-style maths.
Fair that Jon. It's having to (well, I suppose I should say "choosing to") do this every year as one of these leandros-types eventually crash and burn only to be replaced by yet another mouth-breathing fanboy. It gets mind numbing after a while...I understand why you and others drop out of the moderation gig.I've put in more time than I care to remember splitting off Guaporense's insane and repetitive ideas to new threads, consolidated others into existing threads, as well as issued numerous topicality and sourcing warnings (particularly about giving precise sources, rather than just book/article titles) - all on top of usually participating in the discussions myself. My conscience is clean, although I am no longer a moderator here.