German vs. Allied war-making potential

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
Post Reply
User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#166

Post by Qvist » 16 Dec 2009, 00:23

I'd reply to Guaporense as well, but I think Rich pretty much has that wrapped up.

cheers

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#167

Post by The_Enigma » 16 Dec 2009, 11:14

Guaporense wrote:Them it got downhill. Enigma's error was that he didn't see that his points are not mutually exclusive with mine.
Actually i think you will find you made some pretty crap claims that you couldnt back up and then twist and turned - like a twisty turny thing - to attempt to avoid the material thrown your way i.e. your claim that the European Economy was permenatly crippled because of the war; which it has not been.

I think your own answer here, that answers are actually addressing the points raised can be said of practically most of your posts and numerous people have pointed this out to you now.

Edit: Ill get back to you guys later on about Dupuy :)
Last edited by The_Enigma on 16 Dec 2009, 11:20, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#168

Post by Qvist » 16 Dec 2009, 11:17

French does state in his intro that Dupuy's work has formed the basis for many studies to simpley say the Germans were better than everyone else leaving historians with, in his words, the task of explaining why the Western Allies did in fact win the west and that they have been forced to explain this using superior material as the overall answer;
I find it baffling that this issue is still being discussed along such lines - it's a logical cul-de-sac. It simply isn't the case that numerical superiority matters only to the extent that the germans had a qualitative edge. As far as I can see, allied numerical superiority (in men and material) stands out as the obvious and basic factor in the explanation of why the allies won - not because it's the only explanation left provided you believe the Germans performed better, but regardless of what you think about performance. If you think the two sides on the whole performed roughly equal, then that still leaves you with the superiority in resources as the basic explanation for the outcome. And even if you think the allies performed significantly better (in which case it becomes rather difficult to account for the relative tenacity of the German opposition, given their inferiority in resources), it would still be the fact that they fought the war with a very large superiority in forces, which would still remain an explanatory factor impossible to ignore. In fact, the better the allied performance, the larger the effect of their force superiority.

cheers

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#169

Post by The_Enigma » 16 Dec 2009, 12:01

Qvist wrote:
French does state in his intro that Dupuy's work has formed the basis for many studies to simpley say the Germans were better than everyone else leaving historians with, in his words, the task of explaining why the Western Allies did in fact win the west and that they have been forced to explain this using superior material as the overall answer;
I find it baffling that this issue is still being discussed along such lines - it's a logical cul-de-sac. It simply isn't the case that numerical superiority matters only to the extent that the germans had a qualitative edge. As far as I can see, allied numerical superiority (in men and material) stands out as the obvious and basic factor in the explanation of why the allies won - not because it's the only explanation left provided you believe the Germans performed better, but regardless of what you think about performance. If you think the two sides on the whole performed roughly equal, then that still leaves you with the superiority in resources as the basic explanation for the outcome. And even if you think the allies performed significantly better (in which case it becomes rather difficult to account for the relative tenacity of the German opposition, given their inferiority in resources), it would still be the fact that they fought the war with a very large superiority in forces, which would still remain an explanatory factor impossible to ignore. In fact, the better the allied performance, the larger the effect of their force superiority.

cheers
I agree with you that ulltimetly the side that can thrown more men, machines etc into an industrial total war will have the upper hand and this fact would be a major explanatory factor. The argument that French makes is that historians prior to the time of him writing, used the superior numbers and returned to the tactics of the First World War and employed brute force (these latter two factors i failed to mention above but are part of his intro and what he ultimetly argues about throughout the rest of his work) to achive battlefield success agaisnt the Germans. This is a similar argument raised by Stephen Ashley Hart in Colossal Cracks - that there appears to still be an impression of battlefield incompentance, reverting to earlier methods and employing rubbish army commanders.

I dont recall either of them suggesting that at the end of the day the war was won because of any other factor than the Soviets and Western Allies having more manpower and economic muclse to throw around; just that the idea of the British Army bumbling along and using this only factor to win its battles - they suggest and argue that it was a little more complicated than that.

I was going to state this in a seperate post, aimed at replying to Rich, Steve Wilcox and you, however i have to run so; i believe them and yourself have raised numerous excellent points regarding French's comments on Dupupy's work. Before i was willing to write it off as a bunch of worthless stats looking at the points you have raised it does seem that is entirely not the case. I look forward to reading properly through your replies since my previous posts later on :)

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#170

Post by RichTO90 » 16 Dec 2009, 14:14

Guaporense wrote:No, I made this image.
That explains it then,,, :lol:
I used german KIA and WIA that I found on many books and sites on the internet. Them I used US, British, Canadian, French, Polish, etc, battle deaths per front to derive their relative importance as follows: I put the number of German casualties and them I multiplied by the proportion in the allied battle deaths in each front, so I was assuming that each nationality had the same combat effectiveness as deployed in each theater.

Thanks for this data, I think that I can make better tables with it. :lol:
Okaay then, interesting methodology. :roll: Use crap German figures combining select subsets of "casualties" and then "match" them to crap Allied figures for battle deaths per front? Wonderful stuff. :roll: Then you assume that casualties are driven by opposing casualties :roll: ...you certainly didn't get that oddball notion from Trevor; that has to be your own unique "insight" - I hope. :roll:

I'll try to reply to your other posts later, but I'm beginning to think it'll be like trying to explain nuclear physics to a tea cosy... :wink:

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#171

Post by RichTO90 » 16 Dec 2009, 16:16

Guaporense wrote:Well, you appear to have many better sources than I do, but I don't see how my point that the Soviet contributions to the defeat of Germany were of another order of magnitude than the American contributions, at the least the direct military contributions, since lend-lease significantly helped the USSR.
Umm, if your figures are wrong and if an order of magnitude is accepted as “times ten” and if the resultant figures don’t fit, then how can your hypothesis be correct?

Further, if “lend-lease significantly helped the USSR” then how does that mean that the American contribution was lower, which is what your statement implies? Or is your statement simply muddled as well as being incorrect?
So, you have 464,172 "hole" casualties in the west versus 4,423,876 hole casualties in the east. The Americans inflicted around 50% of the 464,000 casualties, didn't they? At Italy most casualties were inflicted by British commonwealth troops while at the western front most were inflicted by the north Americans. So that gives about 1/20 of soviet number. Well, that was in terms of ground combat, since these figures refer to the Heer.
No, you have posited X number of “hole” casualties, But the word you are searching for is actually “whole”. And “whole” battle casualties are KIA, WIA, DOW, and MIA.

Excluding data because it doesn’t fit your argument is poor methodology at best and dishonest at worst.
Also, you should note that the soviets inflicted casualties on Germany when the war was in its decisive moments, where casualties were more important. So i think that is quite obvious that the soviet contribution was the decisive contribution.
Why should I note anything based on shady evidence, piss-poor methodology, a complete lack of definitions, and imprecise terminology?

When was the war at its “decisive moments”?
What were the casualties the Soviets inflicted on the Germans then?
Why were those casualties decisive?
What was the decisive contribution contributing to?
I agree that MIA are important.
Good, then you should have no problem understanding that the “whole casualties” inflicted upon the Germans to circa 10 January 1945 were 5,538,060 in the east and 1,062,214 in the west (ignoring Norway and the Balkans). Deriving an order of magnitude difference or 1/20 relationship from that should be an interesting exercise.
The Romans counted MIA?
I haven’t read a morning report in a while since that was long ago in my undergraduate studies, but I rather expect that, as a well-ordered and administered military with a complete personnel system, yes they likely did?

Why do you think they wouldn’t have? And better yet, why do you think that relevant to a discussion of mid-20th century conventional, technology-based, mass warfare?
My source said that 46,000 German were KIA in France 1940 in the 42 days, with gives 32,800 KIA per month.
What is your source? Why do you think it better than the German documentation? Why in this case after denying that MIA was not part of “whole casualties” do you suddenly include them? But exclude WIA? That’s very muddled thinking and could easily leave you open to accusations of diddling the figures.

Of course, to be fair, even the Germans were uncertain of what was inclusive under battle deaths. For example, on 6 February 1945 KIA were 27,650 and MIA were 13,607, for 41,257. But five months earlier a commission at the Organisation Abteilung of the General Sabs des Heeres had determined that the WFst had calculated KIA as 26,455 based on unit war diaries, the Sanitats Inspektur had given 30,267 “deaths” based upon medical records (so including all causes), and the MIA Commission (charged with determining the disposition of MIA) had come up with 46,059 KIA and MIA presumed dead. So who was “right”? Obviously, your source must have assumed the MIA Commission was.
The victory in 1940 made improbable that the western allies could win the war without the USSR, since they didn't have a position to launch an attack on Ger, they needed to open a front, and to do so, they needed that most of Ger's army would be "distracted" by "something" as to make feasible operation overlord. So, to win the war after 1940, Ger needed only to defeat the USSR. Unless the allies throw a nuclear barrage on Europe.
That, to be impolite for a moment, is bafflegab – nonsense. The German victory in 1940 took the French government out of the war, reducing the “western allies” to the British Empire and various rump exile governments. But, given that four years later an entry onto the continent was made from the British Isles, the notion that they didn’t have a “position to launch” is silly. What they didn’t have was the military means to do so. OTOH, neither did Germany have the means to “launch an attack” on the British. That is what is called a stalemate. To win the war after 1940 the Germans had to do a bit more than just defeat the Soviets. They also needed to keep the British Empire in check and insure that the US did not enter the war. They failed to do all three.
In the last months of the war the proportion of underage serving the military was significant?
Let’s see, you keep on changing your story from 13-year olds in Normandy, to 14-year olds in France, to 14-year olds in the “last months of the war” and now want me to acknowledge the perspicacity of your statement?
The USSR had 12.1 million men in their armed forces in 1945, about 10 million in army and 6.5 million in the front.

Second to Glantz, in 12 march 1944, the soviets had 9.98 million men (army?), of with 6.394 million were in the front.

Second to the document of Operation Unthinkable, the Soviets had in June 1945 over 7 million land forces, of with, over 6 million in Europe. The US had about 1.5 million. So the soviets had 4 times more men.

Second to that document, in 1945 the allies had 100 divisions in Europe (and the US had 61), while the USSR had 571 divisions, but they were understrength compared to allied divisions. They were equivalent to 300 allied divisions in terms of men, of with 260 in Europe. So the soviets had 4.3 times more divisions equivalents than the US in Europe.
Isn’t that rather a large number of seconds?

But I do apologize; I used the front strengths rather than the armed forces strengths. BTW though, you do realize that the strengths given in the Operation Unthinkable document is from a British intelligence estimate and has about as much validity as their documentation of German strengths would?

Anyway, why not use the excellent figures compiled by Art from Soviet archival sources at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&start=45?
Second to the bookTthe economics of WW2, France had mobilized 5 million men in the armed forces in 1939 and 7 million by 1940. I think that 7 million is a bit too much and you 5.1 million figure is more probably correct since France had only 43 million people in 1940.
Shouldn’t that be fifth?

BTW though, the US mobilized just over 18-million on a population of about 130-million, the Germans 18-million on a population (Grosser Reich) of about 80-million, and the Soviets about 35-million on a population of about 130-million. This of course only tells us that the Soviets mobilized proportionately more in uniform than the Germans or Americans.
The Germans made 19,000 tanks and SP guns in 1944 or this includes more stuff?
Um, no, a SPW is not a tank or a SP gun... [edit] Sorry, I didn't notice you changing the goalposts again; your original statement was with regards to the saecond half of 1944[/edit]
He uses the 42 billion dollars as the value of munitions expenditure and production in 1944. He refers to goldsmith, The Power of Victory.
That’s the problem with circular referencing. We don’t know what Goldsmith used for his figures...but based upon mine, drawn from the government reports, he must not have used the actual figures. Probably Goldsmith referenced someone else...
I calculated munitions using the munitions production index and the expenditure in munitions in 1941, with I have detailed data about (10.85 billion RM).
Really? Detailed data? From where? What are they? What do they include?
The strategic bombing survey said that Ger had 14,000 tanks before D-day. Maybe these 6,350 are only the tanks deployed while the 14,000 number refers to all tanks, including stored tanks. The Germans didn't have a number of tanks that were not deployed? Or maybe the 14,000 number includes more categories of AFVs than you did?
Um, isn’t what the Germans reported they actually had in Ob.West rather more relevant to your claim that the 14,000 were in France? And where does the USSBS actually say that the Germans had “14,000 tanks before D-Day”? I haven’t found it in the Tank Industry Report – where is it? [edit] Nevermind, I found it, page 15, "total number in the hands of the army had increased from 11,000 on 1 January to 14,000 on 1 June", which of course is all stocks, including obsolescent vehicles, training vehciles, vehicles in the production pipeline, and not just those "in France" as you first claimed. [/edit]

The fact that you seem to be constantly unaware of what your figures do or do not include does not give me much confidence in your analysis or conclusions.
The USSR had a decrease in GNP while they had a increase in military expenditures. So private consumption was pressed with immense intensity in 1942. I think that is a indicator of military mobilization in the sense that the resources are allocated to the war effort by sacrificing consumption.
What “private consumption”? There was effectively none. Nor does the drop in GNP have anything to do with either increased military spending or decreased private consumption...it was due to having one-third of the country and population occupied by a foreign government.

Further, indicators of military mobilization are already clearly expressed in terms of GNP allocation, workforce allocation, government spending, and production outputs. What you are describing is prioritization, which is something different. Mind you, the prioritization in the Soviet Union was probably second to none, but that remains a different issue.

Your thinking seems very muddled?
Last edited by RichTO90 on 16 Dec 2009, 17:30, edited 1 time in total.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#172

Post by RichTO90 » 16 Dec 2009, 17:01

Guaporense wrote:That people criticize some studies with reach a conclusion that hurts their feelings of superiority of "their" armed forces. i have discussed with people that said "we made x bombers", that kind of attitude is not good.
I hate to be impolite again, but that is not an answer to my question, which is becoming unsurprising and infuriating.

Where have I, other others to date, used the “retarded nationalism” argument with you with regards to German technology, production output, strengths, or losses? I have presented documentary evidence based upon the original German reports and the best rigor I can apply to what is sometimes inadequate and “holey” data. In return you have presented shady, imprecise, un-sourced, and poorly reasoned factoids, while ignoring or twisting actual data presented to you and refusing to answer reasonable questions on your facts and interpretation.
Alright.

Because losing millions of men tends to degrade tactical excellence?
It does? So then the German Army was at the height of its “tactical excellence” on 1 September 1939? BTW, the German Army had only permanently “lost” 792,310 to combat as of 1 September 1942 (KIA, DOW, PW, MIA, and discharged due to wounds). Where are the “millions”?
That is retarded nationalism.
And that seems to be a knee-jerk reaction on your part; resorting to idiotic and meaningless epithets when you don’t have an answer.

What part of my original statement constitutes “retarded nationalism" in your lexicon?

“Well, since they were basically cribbed by Creveld from Trevor that sort of should follow, since there were quite a few engagements by German infantry in the original Italian dataset.  Of course the notion that the selection was cooked or biased is pretty silly anyway…the dataset just was (and critics always have a hard time explaining how the 88th US Infantry Division’s ranking helped Trevor “cook” the numbers…”
If the Germans weren't better than the allies, then they would have lost the war by 1940, maybe 1939. Germany would not be able to defeat Poland in 4 weeks in 1939, but would be in a war of attrition against then (with they would have won easily in 1 year, assuming Britain and France didn't exist), while the western allies would attack from the west and defeat Germany. That is what would have happened if the allied soldier was men per men, as good as the German.
Um, just exactly how were the Germans, with about one and a half times the men committed, three times the tanks, twice the artillery, five times the aircraft, and so on, and a compromising geographical position, supposed to lose a war with the Poles? In just a shade over five weeks BTW.

You do realize of course that the Germans began mobilizing in spring 1939 and the French and British after 1 September? That by 27 August the Germans had completed their initial mobilization and occupied their starting positions? That the French deployed on the German frontier were not at much more than parity with the German defenders until about 20 September?

No, I guess you probably weren’t aware of that.
I think that in many wars the losing side is generally the most tactical proficient! They think that they are so good that they can fight with enemies superior in numbers, and are eventually defeated because their early victories inflated their ego.
You think that do you? You of course have some evidence to prove that conclusion? Or to show that it is in fact relevant to a discussion of facts and figures on technology, production, and mobilization?

Sorry EKB.
They were good at the field but bad in grand strategy. That's because they had a corporal running the grand strategy.
Ah! You’re also of the “those poor brilliant German generals, if they only hadn’t had to deal with the cretin Adolf, we’d all be speaking German now” ilk? Why am I unsurprised?
But the challenges that they faced were smaller.
Um, providing significant financial and production resources to multiple partners in a global alliance and prosecuting an intercontinental war is less challenging than a continental war prosecuted from the home country?

I’m beginning to think you might be delusional.
Do you think that the western allies could win without the USSR in the sense of occupying the country with conventional forces? I think that the USSR could win alone at a greater cost, while the allies needed the soviet help.


Possibly, since with a combined population accessible to them of about four times that of the German Reich and about three times the economic and productive capacity, in an extended conflict the results are pretty much inevitable.

But how is the USSR supposed to win with a bare superiority in military population, a major inferiority in terms of working population, inferiority in overall productive capability, major chemical (especially explosives), raw material (aluminum for one, coal for another), and agricultural shortages (no SPAM and no butter means the caloric intake of the average Soviet is at starvation levels)?

Neither option is very attractive and neither has the certainty of what really occurred.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#173

Post by Guaporense » 16 Dec 2009, 19:21

The_Enigma wrote:
Guaporense wrote:Them it got downhill. Enigma's error was that he didn't see that his points are not mutually exclusive with mine.
Actually i think you will find you made some pretty crap claims that you couldnt back up and then twist and turned - like a twisty turny thing - to attempt to avoid the material thrown your way i.e. your claim that the European Economy was permenatly crippled because of the war; which it has not been.´
I should have said that Europe's economy was permanently crippled for the rest of the war. Even though it is true that the two world wars were important factors in the decline of European civilization.

Well, my argument that materiel was not the main determinant in the outcome is the following:

1- Ger depended on Europe's economy, and the blockade had severe effects on it.

2- Materiel is important. You need to be able to produce the equipment and supplies to maintain a large army to win a war. Germany was more than capable of maintaining armies with enough equipment and supplies to fight effectively anything that the allies could throw at them. While it is true that the allies had economic superiority, the fact was that the richest of the allies, the US, was thousands of kilometers from Europe, so Ger was partially shielded by the material superiority of the US by the Atlantic ocean.

Germany was economically superior to both Britain and the USSR, maybe Ger was economically superior to both put together (in 1943, Britain produced 13 MT of steel, 50 KT of aluminium and 200 MT of coal, while the USSR produced 8.5 MT of steel, 50 KT of aluminium and 130 MT of coal equivalent energy (coal + oil), Ger produced 31 MT of steel, 250 KT of aluminium and 560 MT of coal, so Ger produced 50% more steel, 125% more aluminium and 60% more energy than Britain and the USSR put together).

3- However, if materiel won the war on its own, or was the major factor in allied victory, then why didn't the western allies inflicted more casualties in Ger than the USSR since they produced more materiel? In 1944, second to Goldsmith, the western allies produced 54.5 billion US$ in munitions while the USSR produced 16 billion US$ in munitions, however, the USSR inflicted 2 million casualties in the eastern front while the allies inflicted about 750,000 casualties in the western and Italian fronts. I would expect the allies to have inflicted 10 times or more casualties considering their munition production in the year and the fact that they had stocks of munitions to employ on the front while the USSR was using their munitions simultaneously in the war.

The truth is that munitions production has diminishing returns. If you have an army of 3 million men and produce $5 billion worth of munitions, or $600 per soldier, and double the production to $10 billion of munitions, that 3 million men army would not be twice as good. The western allies maintained armies of 130 divisions (35 British and 95 Americans) while Germany maintained an army with 280-300 divisions. Second to Harrison (1988), a German soldier had $ 1,400 of munitions per capita, while a US or British soldier had on average $ 3,000 dollars of munitions per capita (American soldiers had $ 3,700 per capita while British had $ 2,200, but americans gave the british lend-lease with payed 25% of british munitions, while the americans exported perhants 15-20 of their munitions, so per capita they had 3.000 dollars). Also, German divisions were usually understrength or at authorized strength while Allied divisions had on average more personnel than authorized and had a larger supply train and a larger amount of personnel in supplies.

So, allied divisions cost several times more in terms of munitions than German divisions, since they had more personnel in supplies and each individual was more costly and each division had more personnel. So I would expect that an allied divisions cost 2 (munitions per capita) x 1.5 (more personnel outside the frontlines) x 1.5 (more personnel per division) = 5.5 times more. So, with divisions about 5.5 times more expensive in terms of munitions what was the result? They scored lower than German divisions. I would guess that they would need to produce 6-7 times more materiel than Germany to match than in terms of military capabilities (just making unwarranted generalizations). How much more materiel the western allies produced? 54.5/17 = 3.2. :lol:
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#174

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 Dec 2009, 19:28

Germany was economically superior to both Britain and the USSR, maybe Ger was economically superior to both put together (in 1943, Britain produced 13 MT of steel, 50 KT of aluminium and 200 MT of coal, while the USSR produced 8.5 MT of steel, 50 KT of aluminium and 130 MT of coal equivalent energy (coal + oil), Ger produced 31 MT of steel, 250 KT of aluminium and 560 MT of coal, so Ger produced 50% more steel, 125% more aluminium and 60% more energy than Britain and the USSR put together).
Come on, you've been here long enough now. SOURCE THOSE - preferably in a place where they can be seen in context by all.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#175

Post by LWD » 16 Dec 2009, 19:38

Guaporense wrote: ...Germany was economically superior to both Britain and the USSR, maybe Ger was economically superior to both put together ...
This is very suspect. If you look at table 3 in Wages of Destruction It lists the relative GDPs (US=100) as 33 for Britain and 33 for Germany. (This is for 1924-1935) and 35 for the Soviet Union. However Canada is listed at 6 New Zealand 1, and Australia 4 giving the British Commonwealth a combined 44 to Germany's 33. Even if things changed by 39 it's unlikly that Germany surpassed the Commonwealth and certainly not the Commonwealth and the USSR.

Table 17 is also of some interest as it list armaments produciton 1942-1944. The only area listed where Germany exceeds the USSR is in "major naval vessels".
Last edited by LWD on 16 Dec 2009, 19:45, edited 1 time in total.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#176

Post by RichTO90 » 16 Dec 2009, 19:39

phylo_roadking wrote:Come on, you've been here long enough now. SOURCE THOSE - preferably in a place where they can be seen in context by all.
I does seem rather a lot of work on his part to create what amounts to a giant strawman, doesn't it? :roll:

BTW, he seems unaware that "Britain" constituted rather a bit more than just the British Isles...the Commonwealth Dominions, Colonies, and all that rot, eh wot? :roll:

British Empire/"Axis Europe" production of raw materials (1937) in millions of tons:

Coal - 23.6/23.2...plus access to the 34.2 available to the UK from the US
Oil - 2/2.3...plus access to the 60.0 available to the UK from the US
Iron ore - 10.3/27...plus access to the 38.0 available to the UK from the US
etc., etc., etc...

Just as an aside...does anyone know if darrin emigrated from Canada to Brazil??? :P

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#177

Post by ljadw » 16 Dec 2009, 19:49

I think Darrin was better 8-)

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#178

Post by Guaporense » 16 Dec 2009, 20:05

RichTO90 wrote:
Guaporense wrote:That people criticize some studies with reach a conclusion that hurts their feelings of superiority of "their" armed forces. i have discussed with people that said "we made x bombers", that kind of attitude is not good.
Where have I, other others to date, used the “retarded nationalism” argument with you with regards to German technology, production output, strengths, or losses? I have presented documentary evidence based upon the original German reports and the best rigor I can apply to what is sometimes inadequate and “holey” data. In return you have presented shady, imprecise, un-sourced, and poorly reasoned factoids, while ignoring or twisting actual data presented to you and refusing to answer reasonable questions on your facts and interpretation.
1- You haven't. Nobody here had used "retarded nationalist arguments". And you have made mostly good arguments.

2- However, your best arguments didn't engage some of my "real arguments", instead you focused your energies trying to prove that the US inflicted 10% instead of 5% of the USSR casualties on Germany. While my point was that the difference in damage inflicted was so great that the US didn't make a decisive difference.
It does? So then the German Army was at the height of its “tactical excellence” on 1 September 1939? BTW, the German Army had only permanently “lost” 792,310 to combat as of 1 September 1942 (KIA, DOW, PW, MIA, and discharged due to wounds). Where are the “millions”?
Well, by June 1944 there would have been millions. I would guess than the height of German tactical excellence was in 1941-1942.
What part of my original statement constitutes “retarded nationalism" in your lexicon?
Nothing you said was retarded nationalism.
Um, just exactly how were the Germans, with about one and a half times the men committed, three times the tanks, twice the artillery, five times the aircraft, and so on, and a compromising geographical position, supposed to lose a war with the Poles? In just a shade over five weeks BTW.
The difference in situation between Poland and Germany in 1939 was smaller than the difference between Germany and the Allies in France, 1944. In France the allies had over 2 times the men committed, three times the tanks, eight times the aircraft. The Germans managed to hold the allies in France for 4 months, while the Poles were effectively destroyed in 18 days. I think there was some difference in the character of opposing armies in 1944 compared to 1939.

Assuming that the Germans were not better soldiers than the Poles, the British and the French, the Poles could have positioned their inferior forces (in numbers and materiel) in smarter defensive positions to hold the Germans down for some months. While the British and French could have attacked from the west, and occupied the Ruhr and the western areas of Ger. Britain+France+Poland had 130 million people, Ger had 80 million people in 1939, they outnumber the Germans in manpower by 1.6 to 1 and they surrounded Germany, so they could make a war in two fronts. Poland would not be able to hold more than half of Germany's forces for more than a few months, but they would be able to hold 1/3 of the German army for a sustained period (Poland had 35 million people, while Germany had 80 million, so they had the manpower to hold then superiorly equipped Germans since they could have superior numbers, at least over 1/3 of Germany's army, with gives a population of 24 million to Germany vs 35 million poles), and Britain+France had the resources to defeat 2/3 of Ger's army.
You do realize of course that the Germans began mobilizing in spring 1939 and the French and British after 1 September? That by 27 August the Germans had completed their initial mobilization and occupied their starting positions? That the French deployed on the German frontier were not at much more than parity with the German defenders until about 20 September?
So, if Ger attacked Poland in 1st September while Poland could hold then off for a few weeks, then France and Britain attack in late-September.
No, I guess you probably weren’t aware of that.
I was. But the correct strategy for France and Britain in 1939 would be to attack Germany right on. Even in the real situation were their soldiers were inferior to Germany's and they didn't have numerical superiority. Then we would have WW1 all over again, but France and Britain would convince the US to enter or at least to give massive economic help.
Ah! You’re also of the “those poor brilliant German generals, if they only hadn’t had to deal with the cretin Adolf, we’d all be speaking German now” ilk? Why am I unsurprised?
The fact was that Adolf was not the best men to run grand strategy that they had.
Um, providing significant financial and production resources to multiple partners in a global alliance and prosecuting an intercontinental war is less challenging than a continental war prosecuted from the home country?

I’m beginning to think you might be delusional.
Well, Britain and the US were in a excellent strategic position in WW2. Even if they didn't do anything other than provide economic help to the USSR and do an economic blockade the European continent, they would have probably won. Germany was in a live or death struggle with the USSR while Japan was never a real threat, a painful weak country, the US went to war with then to teach then a lesson. And Japan was bogged down fighting China, with was a rather powerful country relative to Japan.

In fact, the USSR could have defeated Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Japan alone, and the USSR was because of their geographical position, the only country capable of doing that. They in fact did the lion share in the struggle against Germany, Italy, Hungary and Romania. While against Japan, they did some serious damage in 11 days, inflicting more casualties than the US inflicted in months.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#179

Post by Guaporense » 16 Dec 2009, 20:12

phylo_roadking wrote:
Germany was economically superior to both Britain and the USSR, maybe Ger was economically superior to both put together (in 1943, Britain produced 13 MT of steel, 50 KT of aluminium and 200 MT of coal, while the USSR produced 8.5 MT of steel, 50 KT of aluminium and 130 MT of coal equivalent energy (coal + oil), Ger produced 31 MT of steel, 250 KT of aluminium and 560 MT of coal, so Ger produced 50% more steel, 125% more aluminium and 60% more energy than Britain and the USSR put together).
Come on, you've been here long enough now. SOURCE THOSE - preferably in a place where they can be seen in context by all.
German coal and aluminium:
World economic survey - 1942-1944

steel:
Wages of Destruction

USSR:
http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/sovprod.html

Britain:
World economic survey - 1942-1944

And Overy did make the point that Germany had superior economic resources than Britain and the USSR combined.

I thought that you people would know those basic facts of WW2 as steel, coal and oil production of the countries.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#180

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 Dec 2009, 20:17

And Overy did make the point that Germany had superior economic resources than Britain and the USSR combined.
Which automatically makes HIM right too? :wink:
I thought that you people would know those basic facts of WW2 as steel, coal and oil production of the countries.
Read this...
2. Claims and Proof

The sixth rule of the forum is: "When quoting from a book or site, please provide info on the source (and a link if it is a website)."

If a poster raises a question about the events, other posters may answer the question with evidence. If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Also, undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum. For more on this subject, see the announcement at viewtopic.php?p=990676#990676

This requirement applies to each specific claim. In the past, some posters have attempted to evade the proof requirement by resort to the following tactics, none of which are acceptable here:

A general reference to a website, or a book without page references; citations or links to racist websites; generalized citations to book reviews; and citations to unsourced articles.

Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning.
And remember just how wrong your sources proved to be on British shipbuilding - as just one example...

Post Reply

Return to “Economy”