German vs. Allied war-making potential

[RichTO90]

... as ingots/finished castings, or as bauxite?

Ingots, blocks, billets, slabs, etc...

[phylo_roadking]

Not AT you Rich, for your delictation and theoretical use....

After all, isn't half the pleasure of Christmas in the GIVING?

[phylo_roadking]

Ingots, blocks, billets, slabs, etc...

Hmmm...I take it Britain's import of raw bauxite is thus wholly subsumed under the separate "55,660 long tons of virgin" aluminium figure, given that we don't (didn't) have any domestic sources in the UK I'm aware of...

It's interesting that the WES should give figures for aluminium production IN Germany - for I'm not aware that Germany had any domestic sources either; That's WHY Germany owned a large percentage of the Norwegian aluminium/bauxite production industry Ditto for Nickel - Germany owned something like 90% of the Norwegian nickel industry.

I detect an interesting question for a separate thread in the Economy section, just had an unrelated thought on aluminium availability from "nearby" sources...

[Guaporense]

Really, you do NOT get away with that level of obfustication and cr@p here.

It's amazing what some people think they can get away with. :roll:

The "major combatants" that Germany completed in 1944 were:

1 Destroyer
6 Torpedo Boats
248 (nearly useless) U-Boot

The "major combatants" the British completed were:

4 Aircraft carriers
2 Cruisers
31 Destroyers
39 Submarines

Well, if 250 submarines weight more than 30 destroyers, 40 submarines, 4 aircraft carriers and 2 cruisers. Them Ger outproduced Britain.

[RichTO90]

Well, if 250 submarines weight more than 30 destroyers, 40 submarines, 4 aircraft carriers and 2 cruisers. Them Ger outproduced Britain.

Wow, you really are a desperate little shit aren’t you? Is it really that difficult for you to admit you were wrong?

After a few moments investigation I found that Speer was actually trying to diddle Hitler, just as you’ve been so busy trying to diddle people here.
Two destroyers, Z-36 and Z-43 were commissioned, but both had been launched in 1943. Two more, Z-44 and Z-45, were launched in 1944, but neither were completed or commissioned. 7,084 tons completed and commissioned.
Of the six torpedo boats, one, T-36 was launched and commissioned in 1944, five, T-31 to T-35 were launched in 1943 but commissioned in 1944. 10,524 tons completed and commissioned.
For the U-Boote a total of 206 actually were commissioned and joined the fleet in 1944 (BTW, 210 U-Boote were lost and six were retired during the year). 158,414 tons (roughly) completed and commissioned.
Total 214 vessels and 176,022 tons

Minor combat vessels smaller than 769 tons each;
265 Cutters 29,150 tons
145 Landing craft 29,000 tons
78 R-Boote 12,090 tons
61 S-Boote 6,710 tons
Total 549 vessels and 76,950

Grand total of 763 vessels and 252,972 tons

Equivalent British production (combatant vessels larger than 769 tons each):

4 Aircraft carriers 74,500 tons
2 Cruisers 13,800 tons
31 Destroyers 53,700 tons
39 Submarines 29,000 tons
5 sloops 6,800 tons
68 Frigates and corvettes 81,400 tons
4 Minesweepers 4,400 tons
Total 153 vessels and 263,600 tons

Minor combatant vessels smaller than 769 tons each;

35 Minesweepers, trawlers, and etc 24,400 tons
234 Small craft 24,500 tons
1,306 Landing vessels 270,900 tons
Total 1,575 vessels and 319,800 tons
Grand total of 1,728 vessels and 583,400 tons

So 2.26 times more vessels and 2.31 times the tonnage

Them thar Ger apparently didn’t outproduced…

[Michael Kenny]

Warships Launched
or Completed by N.E.
Shipyards 1942-45

Just the North East of England. Got to add the Clyde and Belfast.



BLYTH SB & DD - BLYTH ... Built ...

the tank landing ship 'LST 3026' - the frigate 'Ribble' - the corvette 'Launceston Castle' .
'HMS Frome' frigate (1,370t) - Transferred to the French Navy in 1944 and renamed 'L'Escarmouche'.
'HMS Loch Bolsdale' frigate (1,435t) - Transferred to the South African Navy in 1944 and renamed 'Good Hope' .
'HMS Torridge' frigate (1,370t) - Transferred to the French Navy in 1944 and renamed 'La Surprise'. In 1964 this vessel was being used as the Moroccan Royal Yacht which was named 'Al Maouna' .
SWAN HUNTER & WIGHAM RICHARDSON - WALLSEND ... Built ...

the tank landing ship 'LST 3019' - the cable ships 'Bullfrog' - 'St Margarets' - the destroyers 'Barfleur' - the frigates 'Loch Morlich' - the corvette 'Rushden Castle' .
'HMS Loch Shin' frigate (1,435t) - Helped* sink U 1014, in the Minches. 4th February 1945.
'HMS Cyrus' experimental mine destructor (4,000t) - This vessel was listed as 'Algerine' for security reasons. Wrecked at Seine Bay. 5th December 1944.
'HMS Shrewsbury Castle' corvette (1010t) - Transferred to the Norwegian Navy in 1944 and renamed 'Tonsberg Castle'. Mined in the Kola Inlet. 12th December 1944.
HAWTHORN LESLIE - HEBBURN ... Built ...

the cruiser 'HMS Diadem' - the minelaying cruiser 'HMS Apollo' - the destroyers 'Whelp' - 'Whirlwind' .
VICKERS ARMSTRONG NAVAL YARD - TYNE ... Built ...

the cruiser 'HMS Swiftsure' - the destroyers 'Myngs' - 'Zephyr' - the submarines 'Varne' - 'Virulent' - 'Vivid' - 'Voracious' - 'Votary' - 'Vulpine'.
'HMS Colossus' aircraft carrier (13,190t) - Transferred to the French Navy in 1945 and renamed 'Arromanches' .
'HM Submarine Volatile' (545t) - Transferred to the Greek Navy in 1944 and renamed 'Triana'.
S.P. AUSTIN & SON - SUNDERLAND ... Built ...

the corvette 'Amberley Castle'.
JOHN CROWN & SONS - SUNDERLAND ... Built ...

the corvette 'Farnham Castle'.
'HMS Bulrush' corvette (980t) - Transferred to the RCN in 1944 and renamed 'Mimico'.
WILLIAM PICKERSGILL & SONS - SUNDERLAND ... Built ...

the corvette 'Leeds Castle' - 'Morpeth Castle' .
SMITH'S DOCK COMPANY - MIDDLESBROUGH ... Built ...

the coastal salvage vessel 'Uplifter'.
'HMS Loch Eck' frigate (1,435t) - Helped* sink U 1279, north west of Bergen. 3rd February 1945. - Helped* sink 'U 989', off the Faroes. 14th February 1945. - Helped* sink 'U 1278', north west of Bergen. 17th February 1945.
'HMS Nadder' frigate (1,370t) - Transferred to the Indian Navy in 1944 and renamed 'Shamsher'.
'HMS Teme' frigate (1,370t) - Irreparably damaged by 'U 246' off Falmouth. 29th March 1945. The 'U 246' was subsequently sunk by two other frigates of the same escort group.
COOK, WELDON & GEMMELL - BEVERLEY ... Built ...

the trawlers 'Ailsa Craig' - 'Calvay' - 'Crowlin' - 'Fuday' - 'Guardsman' - 'Hanneray' - 'Harris' - 'Hascosay' - 'Homeguard' - 'Royal Marine' - 'Sandray' - 'Scaravay' - 'Stonechat' - 'Wiay' - the controlled minelayer 'Whitethroat'.
'Colsay' trawler (560t) - Sunk by a German human torpedo off Ostend. 2nd November 1944.
COCHRANE & SONS - SELBY ... Built ...

the tugs 'Enforcer' - 'Enigma' - 'Enticer' - the trawlers 'Hellisay' - 'Hermetray' - 'Imersay' - 'Lingay' - 'Longa' - 'Oronsay' - 'Vatersay'.
'Sesame' tug (1,045t) - Sunk by an E Boat off Normandy. 11th June 1944

all from
http://www.bpears.org.uk/NE-Diary/Bck/Warships2.html

The 4 carriers FINISHED in 1944 appear to be Implacable, Indefatigable, Colossus and Glory.
The Crusers Swiftsure, Diadem and (it seems ) the Cruiser/Minelayer Apollo.

[mescal]

A few more precision on ships in the yards – not necessarily commissioned - in 44.
As of 01/01/1944, the following ships were being built :
1 BB (Vanguard; 46,000 tons std disp); 2 Implacable-class CV (2*26,000 tons); 2 Audacious-class CV (2* 35,000 tons); 9 Colossus-Class carriers (9*13,000 tons); 5 Minotaur-class CL (5*9,000 tons); 3 Tiger-class CL (3* 9000 tons); 32 destroyers ( around 64,000 tons).
Which makes more than 400,000 tons in shipyards.
You should also be aware that UK deliberately slowed down the major combatant building program, for the very simple reason that the war at sea was clearly won by late 43 and these were not the most needed ships anymore.

Regarding you claim of the German shipbuilding capabilities, could you please give me the list of “Major combatants” in the yards that sum up to a total std displacement of 350,000 tons ? (which is still under the 400,000 tons figure above, but more or less twice the incorrect 171,000 tons claim you mentioned.

To be complete, here are the ships by name :
BB: Vanguard
CV: Implacable, Indefatigable; Audacious/Eagle, Ark Royal; Glory, Ocean, Perseus, Theseus, Venerable, Pioneer, Triumph, Vengeance, Warrior.
CL : Swiftsure, Minotaur/Ontario, Superb, Hawke, Bellerophon; Blake, Defence, Tiger
DD: Bataan;Shark/Svenner;Undaunted;Urania;Ursa;Valentine2/Algonquin;Vixen/Sioux;Volage;
Wager;Wakeful2;Wessex2;Whelp;Whirlwind2;Wizard;Wrangler;
Myngs;Zambesi;Zealous;Zebra;Zenith;Zephyr;Zest;Zodiac;
Cavendish;Caesar;Cambrian;Caprice;Carron;Carysfort;Cassandra;Cavalier;Barfleur

1) GDP of annexed territories to the Reich should be added immediately. But I think that you should not measure GDP of occupied territories not annexed, instead you should compute their payment of occupation forces.
2) They are good measures: With Steel you make guns, bullets, cannons, horseshoes, ships and tanks. With Aluminium you make aircraft. With coal and oil you make energy to make an industrial economy work. Steel and coal were the most important indicators of raw industrial strength of potential munitions production in the first half of the 20th century.
4) Them we cannot have a rational discussion.

1) Why ? Economic integration is IN NO WAY an immediate process today. Even less so in the 40’s.
2) Good measure of economic strength??? what an absurdity ! Do you feed the Army horses with steel ? Or make electricity with Aluminium ?

Carefully chosen items? Energy and steel?
Energy and steel were the determinants of potential munition production.

Still with your ‘if it ain’t holed it’s still there and if it’s not a resource that makes hole it doesn”t count, huh ?
Does it come to you that, for example, it is equally useful to FEED your soldier ? and not just provide them bullets ? And that you have to feed all those civilians, who make bullets, propaganda movies ...
In short, there was no such thing as a statistically representative item of global economic activity. Today the energy could be used, but not in the 40’s when a larger part of energy used was animal (horses, humans) and not accounted properly for.

[phylo_roadking]

Two destroyers, Z-36 and Z-43 were commissioned, but both had been launched in 1943. Two more, Z-44 and Z-45, were launched in 1944, but neither were completed or commissioned.

I'll have to check up on that, but even that may not count fully - weren't two of these (one pair or the other) actually FRENCH unfinished destroyers that had been sitting as hulls on the blocks since 1940 and only finished by the Germans? IIRC pics of them appeared confusingly 18 months or so ago in the Fedlgrau Picture Puzzle thread.

But the Germans still gave them Z numbers...

[RichTO90]

Two destroyers, Z-36 and Z-43 were commissioned, but both had been launched in 1943. Two more, Z-44 and Z-45, were launched in 1944, but neither were completed or commissioned.

I'll have to check up on that, but even that may not count fully - weren't two of these (one pair or the other) actually FRENCH unfinished destroyers that had been sitting as hulls on the blocks since 1940 and only finished by the Germans? IIRC pics of them appeared confusingly 18 months or so ago in the Fedlgrau Picture Puzzle thread.

But the Germans still gave them Z numbers...

Not AFAICT? ZF-2 and ZF-7 were captured incomplete and mever launched, completed, or commissioned. ZF-4 was under repair, having been commissioned in 1927, but the repairs were never completed. All three were scrapped AFAIK?

[phylo_roadking]

I'll have to try and search inside that thread on Feldgrau and get the numbers....

[LWD]

...Well, I can make the case that steel production is a very good statistic for determining economic resources for waging war in the first half of the 20th century.

Then do so. So far you have posted an opinion with a very simplistic justification.

1) Industrial production was only significant at Canada, India and Africa had rather small industrial production. So, increase Britain's number by 10-20% and I think you can get accurate stats.

And we're suppose to rely on what you think? There was manufacturing in Australia and New Zeeland as well. You can't just dismiss it without addressing it.

2) I think that the RM was not artificially high in relation to the dollar and the ruble, because the prices of tanks and ships match when I use their exchange rates in 1939 and using price indexes to normalize everything to 1939 data.

Did the ruble even have an official exchange rate at that time? Tooze makes a pretty strong case for the RM being over valued post 1932. Your hand waving hardly stands up to that.

3) Well, I made the argument that the economic resources available to Germany in 1942-43 were greater than the sum of Britain and the USSR.

No you didn't make that argument you mearly stated it and it does not appear to have any validity at all.

1) GDP of annexed territories to the Reich should be added immediately. But I think that you should not measure GDP of occupied territories not annexed, instead you should compute their payment of occupation forces.

Where are you getting the GDP of annexed territories? How do you account for reconstruction and looting?

2) They are good measures: With Steel you make guns, bullets, cannons, horseshoes, ships and tanks. With Aluminium you make aircraft. With coal and oil you make energy to make an industrial economy work. Steel and coal were the most important indicators of raw industrial strength of potential munitions production in the first half of the 20th century.

You keep saying this and indeed they are important ones but by the mid 20th century others were becoming very important as well. And of course it's not just "steel" but what kind of steel.

4) Them we cannot have a rational discussion.

The balls in your court in that regard.

[The_Enigma]

I think i can sum up the level of information in regards to German and British ship production plus the level of information on German casualties in two simple words.... FECKING HELL!!!

One would imagine that said information was out there but for it all to be reproduced and thrown onto a forum is something else, wow guys!

Regarding the German stats; at the end of the day with so many overlapping reports and different figures one surely must have a headache trying to figure out just how many men the Germans lost and were.

[RichTO90]

One would imagine that said information was out there but for it all to be reproduced and thrown onto a forum is something else, wow guys!

The interesting thing about GDP data is it is relatively easy to find, even if it is not always complete or obviously comprehensive. In this case we may compare the GDP of nations in 1943. That's what makes Guaporense's maunderings so comedic.

All these figures are normalized to 1990 "International Geary-Khamis Dollars". For those interested in reality, as opposed to masturbatory fantasies :roll: , Historia.se is probably the best single source for historical economic data available.

For “Germany” these figures assume that it had full control of Italian GDP and that the seven small Eastern European states (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia) had no part of their estimated GDP already included in that reported for Germany. Further, it assumes that Germany had full control of the economies of all those states allied to it or under its hegemony all these assumptions likely overstate the case ).

“Germany” (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia) - $850,889-million

For the “British Empire” it includes the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and India, but not South Africa, British East Africa, Sri Lanka, and various other smaller colonial states under British control that have no record). - $812,745-million

United States - $1,581,122-million

Soviet Union - $333,656-million

It seems fairly obvious that in terms of the economic productive capability to wage war, the German hegemony should have been able to easily defeat the Soviet Union in a “one-on-one” contest. Versus the British Empire in a “one-on-one” the probable end game is a stalemate, assuming that the Germans retain access to trade with the Soviet Union and the UK with trade to the rest of the world. Similarly, a combination of the British Empire and the Soviet Union has an edge over the Germans and would likely be able to win a contest of attrition (assuming the “will” of all parties remains steadfast). However, the entry of the United States into the contest, in virtually any scenario except for the “USA Against the World” virtually guarantees victory to the side America unites with.

[ljadw]

Even if Britain fell of in 1940,or the SU in 1941 ?

[RichTO90]

Even if Britain fell of in 1940,or the SU in 1941 ?

???

Do you mean Seelöwe or Barbarossa succeeds? Both are pretty much in the region of cloud-cuckoo-land.

But yes, if Alien Space Bats transport Heeersgruppe B to England in summer 1940 or take over logistical operations for the Ostheer in fall 1941, then yes, I suppose my assessment might change.