Rob Stuart wrote:Guaporense wrote:
Why you don't compare Canadian to German production of locomotives, instead?
Why would I want to do that? My underlying point is that the US was not the only country to see its GNP and overall prosperity increase during the war. In any case, I do not know how many locomotives Canada produced during the war, except that it was sufficient to meet the country's needs and that in addition 145 were exported to India.
So you clearly did not understand my point there. As I explained, in all major countries in WW2 there was a massive increase in observed productivity. In WW1, on the other hand, there was a decrease in productivity. I am trying to understand that.
My hypothesis is that there was no increase in productivity in WW2 but an statistical distortion caused by government price manipulation in the economy which inflated GDP figures. This applies to all countries that mobilized: Germany, UK, US, USSR, Canada, etc.
While in WW1, there was not statistical distortion because the degree of government intervention into the price system was smaller. Hence, inflation was higher which was reflected into the fall of productivity per worker in WW1.
Guaporense wrote:Locomotives were far more important [than trucks] for the German war effort because they were the basic means to supply armies.
Not true. Both were important.
That doesn't contradict what I said. I said that LOCOMOTIVES were MORE important not that trucks were not important.
In a previous thread you have argued that the Germans could have defeated the USSR, without saying how they may have done this.
I never said that. But could they? I can suggest many ways to improve their chances in beating the USSR relative to the historical record.
Overall, it was quite an amazing feat of resistance that the USSR managed to survive the German attack. I wouldn't say the Germans were being inefficient or made a weak attack with Barbarossa, because it was not a weak and poorly supplied operation by any measure but instead it was the largest and most well supplied military operation in human history up to that point in time: by June 1941, the Wehrmacht was the world's best military force by a huge stretch, they were not only the best trained but also were the best equipped military in the world, and thanks to low casualties they were at the peak of their effectiveness in WW2.
That the Red Army resisted it and managed to drive the Wehrmacht back to Berlin was a historical feat of great note (in fact, it was the capacity of socialism to allow for a third world country like the USSR to defeat Europe's foremost economic power, Germany, that served as a main argument for the adoption of socialism in many countries following WW2).
You talk as if you were not aware of these historical facts.
How in hell were they supposed to pull that off without far more trucks than they actually possessed
Because they used locomotives.
given that the Russians destroyed pretty much any locomotive they could not withdraw to the east and that the Germans could use their own locomotives and rolling stock only after converting the tracks to German gauge? Their lack of the additional trucks, tanks, aircraft and other items which you claim would be superfluous may well have cost them victory in that campaign.
Do you have any source supporting that claim? Because you see, German soldiers were on average 800% as efficient as Soviet soldiers in inflicting casualties. Still, they lost. Clearly, you argue that if they had more trucks, tanks and aircraft they would suddenly become like 1,000% as efficient? 1,200% as efficient? 1,400% as efficient?
The fact is that historically German soldiers were about 200% as effective as WAllied soldiers and 800% as effective as Soviet soldiers. Despite all claims floating around the internet of the Wehrmacht being under-supplied with tanks and stuff. Those claims are ignorant.
The high fighting power of the Wehrmacht was only possible because the Wehrmacht was well equipped in WW2 and had adequate supply of ammunition and food, etc, which enabled it to fight effectively. To claim otherwise is to show ignorance. Plain and simple.
Also, tanks, aircraft and trucks were not that important in WW2. The main sources of casualties were artillery and infantry weapons, aircraft and tanks inflicted less than 5% of all casualties, and that was specially smaller given the massive scale of the Eastern front. While trucks could be substituted for horses, their role was just to link railway depots with the army*. Increasing the German supply of aircraft, trucks and tanks wouldn't do anything to help the Wehrmacht, but it would only hurt it because of the additional manpower lost to do maintenance and field these pieces of equipment while they wouldn't have the fuel to operate them.
*Supplying an army with trucks alone was extremely inefficient and invading the USSR with a huge army without using the railways would be impossible.
Regarding the fuel they would require, I would point out that:
1. If the Germans had twice as many trucks, tanks and aircraft it does no follow that fuel consumption would double. It would undoubtedly increase by something less than 100%, since many of the trucks, tanks and aircraft would be held as spares and not used until issued to forward units to replace losses.
2. If the Germans used up pretty much all their fuel reserves in 1941 but defeated the USSR because they had the extra trucks, tanks and aircraft, then military operations on the eastern front would all but cease and they could build their reserves back up again.
They were already consuming way more fuel than they produced in 1941. Aircraft fuel consumption was 140% of supply in 1941 and that was for a campaign that lasted only half of 1941.
Finally, you have completely failed to take into account the cost to the war effort of producing and transporting all the fodder required for all those horses. How many thousands of people were kept on farms producing fodder who could have been employed doing something else? How many thousands of trains took fodder to the east instead of, to name just one example, winter clothing? How many of the insufficient number of trucks had to take fodder from the railheads to artillery units instead of shells?
However, they had to use horses because they lacked the fuel for trucks. It's true trucks were more cost effective than horses but its also true that Germany lacked any substantial oil supplies which forced then to use horses to replace trucks.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz