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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#181

Post by ljadw » 16 Dec 2009, 20:26

Guaporense:population is not automatically aequal to manpower :Belgium with 8million people mobilised 650000 an the Netherlands with 10 million, 450000

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#182

Post by Guaporense » 16 Dec 2009, 20:39

LWD wrote:
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".
You use GDP and munitions numbers, both are different categories than mine.

1- Table 3 lists GDP by two types of estimate. And lists GDP between 1924-1935. However, Germany was in a worse shape in these years than any other economy in the world. In the 20's Germany did only well in a few years, while in the great depression Germany was hit as hard that unemployment was about 35%, while in the US it was 25%. Between 1932 and 1938, ger's economy recovered faster than any other, so by 1938, ger's position was quite different.

While second to my copy of "The Economics of WW2", Ger PPP GDP was 45% of the US in 1938, while Britain's was 35%. They both use Maddison as a source. However, Ger annexed austria, parts of Poland, parts of Czechoslovakia, parts of france, belgiun, luxemburg and netherlands by 1940. This increased Ger's GDP by 25-30%. So, in relation to 1938 numbers, Ger's GDP was 55-60% of the US!

Using market exchange rates, Ger's GNP in 1939 (with Austria and Czechoslovakia) was 129 billion RM. About 52,26 billion dollars with market exchange rates, with is 57,7% of US's GNP. US's gnp was 90,5 billion. GNP tends to be very similar to GDP. The data is from The Economics of WW2.

2- The raw material numbers I posted before are correct, and you should note that Germany had a larger heavy industry than Britain, while Britain was more of an financial center. In 1938 Ger made 23 million tons of steel, while Britain made ~11-12 million, the USSR made ~17 million and the US made ~45 million. These numbers are not very precise and I have taken from several different sources.

3- The USSR had a serious drop in GDP with Barbarossa, while Ger GDP increased between 1938 and 1943, by about 60%! Due to military mobilization plus annexation of territories. In 1942 Ger had nearly twice the GDP (about 1.7 times larger in 1942 and 1943), and controlled several times more GDP than the USSR, counting occupied territories and allies in Europe, like Italy. I computed the GDP using exchange rates between the mark and the ruble. Sources: Harrison: "The USSR and Total War: Why didn’t the Soviet economy collapse in 1942?", "The economics of WW2".

4- If you compared armament production you should note that the USSR devoted a far larger proportion of their resources to the production of weapons. And you should note that German weapons were better than Soviet weapons. Second to Harrison (1988), in 1943, when Germany had equaled the USSR in production of munitions, the proportion of Ger's working population in war related industries was 14.2%, while the USSR had 31%! So, if Ger's GDP was 1.7 times larger than USSR's GDP while the production of steel was nearly 4 times larger, I am not surprised with equal munitions production in 1943 with less than half of proportion of labor allocated to munitions.
Last edited by Guaporense on 16 Dec 2009, 21:04, edited 1 time in total.
"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

#183

Post by Guaporense » 16 Dec 2009, 20:49

phylo_roadking wrote:
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 think that he has some authority. If he says that, I think that some research needs to be done to
And remember just how wrong your sources proved to be on British shipbuilding - as just one example...
Wrong? I think that they reflected a very restricted category of shipbuilding. I have vast data on US shipbuilding (from Mobilizing US Industry for WW2), were it is clear that the US produced 1.0 million tons of warships in 1944, while they produced several times that in terms of shipping, landing craft and small boats. I think that having Britain producing 20% of the US's warships ships is quite precise.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#184

Post by RichTO90 » 16 Dec 2009, 20:52

Guaporense wrote: 1- You haven't. Nobody here had used "retarded nationalist arguments". And you have made mostly good arguments.
Then why did you chose to resort to that epithet? Desperation? Nothing more sensible to say?
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.
Um, I did “engage them”, but the response seems to be sailing somewhat over your head. Nor did I try to “prove” anything since, apparently unlike you; I gave up trying to “prove” intangibles about 30 years ago.

So now the presence of the United States in the European war “didn’t make a decisive difference”? Really? :roll:
Well, by June 1944 there would have been millions. I would guess than the height of German tactical excellence was in 1941-1942.
“Would have been” and “guess”? I think that pretty much typifies your argument to date. :roll:
Nothing you said was retarded nationalism.
Then why did you respond that way to me?
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.
Oh dear, this is becoming tiresome. 6 June 1944 to 25 July 1944 is seven weeks, not four months. Do you actually have any notion when the Allied commitment of forces on the Continent did exceed the forces that Ob. West had available for commitment?

“I think”? You have been referred to Freisser; have you actually read him? You do know about the extensive problems the Germans encountered in Poland? The do know about the poor leadership by junior officers and NCOs, the poor coordination of arms, the failures in tactics? You do realize that the Germans suffered from major shortfalls in qualified NCOs and junior officers throughout the war?


Assuming
As my DI used to love to say, “when you ASSUME, you’re only making an “ASS” out of “U” and “ME”… :roll:

But in this case you’re only making an ass of yourself.

They “could have”, they “could have”…factoid, factoid, factoid…strawman, strawman, strawman…
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.
They did, they did, they couldn’t. What parts of that are you unable to comprehend? French mobilization was complete until 20 January. Most of the Colonial troops were still en route from North Africa as were the initial British contingents. The Germans had a complete defense system along their frontier and the Allies were uninterested in testing it.
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.
I see, so the best course for the Allies was to attack without the extensive preparation that their, especially the French, military system required, against a fortified enemy enjoying near parity in strength.
The fact was that Adolf was not the best men to run grand strategy that they had.
Really? And yet he managed to get them to 1943 before those “millions” of losses took the edge off the Wehrmacht?
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.
I do so love statements of the blindingly obvious…of course it’s good to know that all that bombing, North African whoopla, and threat of Continental invasion was meaningless…just keep on sending the dollars to Uncle Joe, that’s all it takes…

Yeah, Japan was “never a real threat”…are you sure your name isn’t Kimmel or Short? And, I’m sure you have some evidence that the US “went to war” with Japan to “teach then [sic] a lesson”? You go by “Marlock” on soc.history.war.world-war-ii don’t you? Wait, no, he claims to be Croatian, while you may be a Canadian expat in Brazil…
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.
When in doubt, indulge in rhetoric… :roll:

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#185

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 Dec 2009, 20:55

So THIS figure...
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,50 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).
...comes from HERE -
German coal and aluminium:
World economic survey - 1942-1944
...does it?

According to Page 73 Germany produced 325,000 tons of aluminium in 1943...while Britain produced 450,000 tons.

That's 325Kt of aluminium for Germany as opposed to 450Kt for the UK. You appear to have got BOTH figures WAY wrong.

Let's have a look at coal. You said Germany produced 560 MT of coal..what you FAILED to note as that the figure the WES DOES have for 1943 is ONLY for TWO MONTHS and extrapolated upwards...while even THOSE come from a newspaper article in The Times by their diplomatic correspondent!

NOR do you remember to mention some of the OTHER caveats the WES mentions in detail -

1/ HALF that total is LIGNITE! - not coal.
2/ Synthetic oil production cut deeply into those figures
3/ the collapse of distribution greatly inhibited those supplies reaching civilian users.

I can see why you don't normally provide links and sources - when checked, a LOT of additional factors are left out, and some of your figures are just plain WRONG. Can you not even copy them correctly?

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#186

Post by Guaporense » 16 Dec 2009, 21:05

phylo_roadking wrote:
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 think that he has some authority. If he says that, I think that some research needs to be done to say otherwise.
And remember just how wrong your sources proved to be on British shipbuilding - as just one example...
Wrong? I think that they reflected a very restricted category of shipbuilding. I have vast data on US shipbuilding (from Mobilizing US Industry for WW2), were it is clear that the US produced 1.0 million tons of warships in 1944, while they produced several times that in terms of shipping, landing craft and small boats. I think that having Britain producing 20% of the US's warships ships is quite precise.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#187

Post by The_Enigma » 16 Dec 2009, 21:12

Guaporense wrote: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.
Although i do believe you did try to argue that the economy was crippled post war too; but a decline in civilization? Regardless of such a horendous war did that begin a decline in the cultural of the European nations? Or did the war, possibly imo the worst this planet and the European continent has thus seen, lead to the destruction of our society? :D

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#188

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 Dec 2009, 21:15

Wrong? I think that they reflected a very restricted category of shipbuilding. I have vast data on US shipbuilding (from Mobilizing US Industry for WW2), were it is clear that the US produced 1.0 million tons of warships in 1944, while they produced several times that in terms of shipping, landing craft and small boats. I think that having Britain producing 20% of the US's warships ships is quite precise.
Doesn't matter a toss. It doesn't matter what you clain now - YOU picked the criteria to be measured THEN - German nval tonnage vs. British naval tonnage IN 1943 - and got it way wrong. Maybe those interested who care to refresh their memories from earlier in this thread when your sources proved so fallible - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1400342
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 16 Dec 2009, 21:30, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#189

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 Dec 2009, 21:29

In fact - courtesy of YOUR source, the World Economic Survey - we can now be a LOT more specific about 1943 end-to-end naval production in the UK.

In relation to MY figures...
In fact - between the 1st of January and the 31st of December 1943 - Britain's shipyards launched naval vessels totalling 316,112 tons
Your reply - AND initial figure - was -
I am talking about warships. Britain made 170.000 tons of warships in 1943, while Germany made twice.
If you care to look at Page 84 of the WES...Britain constructed 497,000 tons of naval tonnage in 1943.

Let's look more at what you have JUST said -
it is clear that the US produced 1.0 million tons of warships in 1944, while they produced several times that in terms of shipping, landing craft and small boats. I think that having Britain producing 20% of the US's warships ships is quite precise.
20%? Really? Well, looking at the WES, Great Britain produced 267,000 tons of naval shipping in 1944... that's not 20% it's over 25%, nearly a quarter....

Ooops, my bad.....

Looking closer, what do I see?
1944, Jan.-June
So in ONLY HALF OF 1944 - Great Britain produced over a quarter of what the U.S. did in the whole year. What a pity the WES doesn't have figures for the OTHER HALF of 1944 to ruin your comparison even more thoroughly :wink:

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#190

Post by RichTO90 » 16 Dec 2009, 21:39

phylo_roadking wrote:So in ONLY HALF OF 1944 - Great Britain produced over a quarter of what the U.S. did in the whole year. What a pity the WES doesn't have figures for the OTHER HALF of 1944 to ruin your comparison even more thoroughly :wink:
Major combatants 1944 was 171,000 ST, minor combatants was 88,200 ST, minecraft was 28,800 ST, minor craft was 24,500 ST, and landing craft was 270,900 ST so 754,400 ST total... (Fighting with Figures Table 7.3 and 7.4)

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#191

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 Dec 2009, 21:44

so 754,400 ST total
Rich, thanks for that.

Which means...
What a pity the WES doesn't have figures for the OTHER HALF of 1944 to ruin your comparison even more thoroughly
We NOW know that the UK produced 75% of the naval tonnage in 1944 that the U.S. (supplied earlier) did - NOT 20%....

Rich - that IS of course assuming the just over 1.0 million tons figure supplied a few posts above WAS correct? :wink: What does your source say for U.S. naval tonnage?
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 16 Dec 2009, 21:47, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#192

Post by The_Enigma » 16 Dec 2009, 21:46

Guaporense wrote:1- You haven't. Nobody here had used "retarded nationalist arguments". And you have made mostly good arguments.
So you have brought it up at least twice now for? Shits and giggles? :P

Now to score browny points with everyone, you know what is retarded nationalism - fascism! Booyah! someone give me a cookie! :D
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.
Iirc the French did launch a small scale assault into Germany following the DOW but didnt ammount to much. I also recall that the Anglo-French governments decided the best cause of action would be a build up to then proceed and launch "the proper war" a few years down the line.

What exactlly was the UK suppose to attack with off the get-go? In Sept 1939 the Army stood at a strength of 983,000 (rounded) men - impressive ;) However only 224,000 men were in the Regular Army and the TA mustered around 438,100 men. The key problems are: 1) the Regular Army is not all sitting at home, quite a number of battalions, brigades and divisions are already delpoyed overseas 2) the TA had been screwed over by the government during the 1930s and was not trained or equipped to the same standard as the regulars.

Now in addition there was 131,000 men in the Regular reserve - most of which had been in civvie life for up to 13 years leaving only 3,700 reletively fully trained and fit as they were the ones who left in 1938. Likewise the TA reserve had around 20,000 men with the same issues. (various pages, chapter 2, Raising Churchill's Army).

I couldnt comment to the same standard about the French army but from what i recall from Julian Jackson's work they had their own problems backed up by significant political and social problems all of which played a role in the eventual outome of the western front in 1940.
while Japan was never a real threat, a painful weak country, the US went to war with then to teach then a lesson.
Am thinking some of our American friends may spin a different light on why the US went to war with Japan ... mainly being taken by surprise two years into a global war (thank you Al Murray! :lol: ) being a key point :p

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#193

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 Dec 2009, 21:49

Now to score browny points with everyone, you know what is retarded nationalism - fascism! Booyah! someone give me a cookie!
Oh I dunno - you're possibly talking about brownIE points....

Browny points are what you get on the sharp ends of the stick! :wink:

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#194

Post by The_Enigma » 16 Dec 2009, 21:53

phylo_roadking wrote:
Now to score browny points with everyone, you know what is retarded nationalism - fascism! Booyah! someone give me a cookie!
Oh I dunno - you're possibly talking about brownIE points....

Browny points are what you get on the sharp ends of the stick! :wink:
I think i shall got for the brownie points then; sharp poo covered sticks dont sound as appetising!

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

Re: German vs. Allied technology

#195

Post by RichTO90 » 16 Dec 2009, 22:04

phylo_roadking wrote:Rich, thanks for that.
Cheers!
Rich - that IS of course assuming the just over 1.0 million tons figure supplied a few posts above WAS correct? :wink: What does your source say for U.S. naval tonnage?
Er, 1.05-million DT of combatants actually...can't wait for his "vast" trove of knowledge to break that down for us... :roll:

BTW, the source for U.S. Naval tonnage wouldn't be the British statistical digest, it would be the final report of the U.S. War Production Board... :lol:

Wann know how many landing ships, 759 tons or larger were produced...and in which month? :wink:

Post Reply

Return to “Economy”