ljadw wrote:This is a strawman :for the small ammunition (of which the bullets had a different weight) KDF used the number of rounds,while for the artillery shells,who had also a different weight,he used the weight .
I have no preference,but I am asking questions for the use of rounds for the small ammunition and the use of weight for the shells :why not weight for both,or numbers for both ?
Yes, it is a strawman - on your part. You may now say you "have no preference", but it was apparent from your objection to the figure presented what your preference was.
In any case, the figure was used that way
because that is the way the figure was counted originally. Small arms ammunition production is commonly given as rounds, usually up to around 8mm, then in rounds and weight for heavier artillery ammunition. Rifle-caliber ammunition is so lightweight - typically 20-25 grams each - that weight calculations are almost meaningless in most context and simply weren't done; more frequently the packaged weight is substituted. I have found this in both production statistics for the U.S., UK, Germany, and the Soviet Union, as well as in their military logistics calculations.
And what for the aircraft : should one use the number of aircraft,or the weight,and,what about the tanks:number or weight (Soviet tanks were heavier)?
You could use the airframe weight for aircraft...if you know what it was and whether or not it includes the engine. However, the same general result can be obtained by comparing similar types of aircraft...single-engine fighters, twin-engine fighters, single-engine bombers/attack, twin-engine bombers, and etc. It simply isn't that difficult.
"Soviet tanks were heavier"? Really? Which models? How much production? If you think it is that significant, then please by all means trot out your figures. However, given that it is the manufacturing process rather than the raw weight of materials that is likely more import, it is probably safer and easier to do a more simple comparison as between the aircraft.
The same also applies to artillery and to naval production, ofwhich the Soviets may exhibit a significant shortfall.
The arbitrary use is feeding the suspicion that round/weight is used,when it is in the benefit of Germany .
That may be your assumption, but in fact the opposite is likely true as was shown by Dr. Arthur Volz years ago in the Journal of Soviet Military History. Since most readily available figures are for gross "artillery rounds" produced and since the Soviets included 20mm production and higher in most of their accounting, while the Germans counted 37mm and higher, the opposite is more likely true. Meanwhile, it is essentially meaningless to differentiate between Soviet 7.62mm and German 7.92mm production by weight - round counts are more than adequate. The same goes for Soviet 12.7mm and 14.5mm counts versus German 13mm and 15mm.