Quantity Not Quality Fighters

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9889
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Quantity Not Quality Fighters

Post by Sid Guttridge » 28 Dec 2021 15:03

Hi TMP,

According to your link in the third quarter of 1943, before it peaked, Germany had 935,000 people employed in its airframe and aeroengine industry. The information on this thread puts the British as employing 510,000 in 1944.

While I appreciate that this may not be comparing like with like exactly, given that the two workforces had similar total output in 1944, one has to ask how it is being established that Germany was more productive than the UK?

What am I missing?

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: Quantity Not Quality Fighters

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Dec 2021 16:24

Sid Guttridge wrote:
28 Dec 2021 15:03
What am I missing?
Busy day today so can't do much legwork. Try going back and checking the comparative basis - airframes or airframes+engines for each? Including or excluding contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers for each?
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2081
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Quantity Not Quality Fighters

Post by Gooner1 » 29 Dec 2021 15:00

Sid Guttridge wrote:
28 Dec 2021 15:03
Hi TMP,

According to your link in the third quarter of 1943, before it peaked, Germany had 935,000 people employed in its airframe and aeroengine industry. The information on this thread puts the British as employing 510,000 in 1944.

While I appreciate that this may not be comparing like with like exactly, given that the two workforces had similar total output in 1944, one has to ask how it is being established that Germany was more productive than the UK?

What am I missing?

Cheers,

Sid.
According to 'Fighting with Figures' total numbers employed in 'engineering, and metals, explosives and chemicals' in the manufacture of equipment and supplies for the Ministry of Aircraft Production in the third quarter of 1943 was 1,655,300.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4905
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Quantity Not Quality Fighters

Post by Richard Anderson » 29 Dec 2021 18:15

Gooner1 wrote:
29 Dec 2021 15:00
According to 'Fighting with Figures' total numbers employed in 'engineering, and metals, explosives and chemicals' in the manufacture of equipment and supplies for the Ministry of Aircraft Production in the third quarter of 1943 was 1,655,300.
Yes, table 3.13. Alternately there is Table 3.16: Numbers employed in engineering and allied industries, Manufacture of equipment and supplies for the Forces, Orders for Ministry of aircraft Production, which gives 1,624,400. That is probably somewhat closer to employment in the "airframe and aeroengine industry".
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4905
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Quantity Not Quality Fighters

Post by Richard Anderson » 29 Dec 2021 18:41

Sid Guttridge wrote:
28 Dec 2021 15:03
According to your link in the third quarter of 1943, before it peaked, Germany had 935,000 people employed in its airframe and aeroengine industry. The information on this thread puts the British as employing 510,000 in 1944.
In the third quarter of 1943, the US average employment in its airframe industry was 549,672.3, in its engine industry was 170,056.7, and in its propeller industry (don't forget propellers! :D ) was 29,184. Total industry employment (prime contractors, sub-contractors, and parts suppliers) averaged 1,984,833 for the same period. Note that leaves a gap of 1,235,920 between total industry employment and the breakdown of employment by industry. Quelle horreur, how could that be?

Well, prime contractors included the actual employment of airframe, engine, propeller, glider, and special-purpose aircraft plants, and modification centers, while sub-contractors and parts suppliers figures were estimated and included employment in many plants classified by the Bureau's Employment Statistics Division in other industries, such as electrical equipment and automobiles; all establishments having subcontracts were included, even when aircraft and parts did not constitute their primary activity.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2081
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Quantity Not Quality Fighters

Post by Gooner1 » 30 Dec 2021 15:14

Richard Anderson wrote:
29 Dec 2021 18:15
Yes, table 3.13. Alternately there is Table 3.16: Numbers employed in engineering and allied industries, Manufacture of equipment and supplies for the Forces, Orders for Ministry of aircraft Production, which gives 1,624,400. That is probably somewhat closer to employment in the "airframe and aeroengine industry".
I think Table 3.16 is just Table 3.13 less Table 3.14 - 'Numbers employed in the chemicals, explosives, paints, oils, etc, industries' - 30,900 for the MAP in September '43.
3.17 might have been useful 'Number employed in engineering and metals industries' but it lumps 'Motor vehicles cycles and aircraft manufacture and repair' together @ 1,128.2 thousand.

It must be though that the total MAP engineering employment includes everything from the makers of the paint, the bolts, nuts and screws, the cabling, the instruments, the metal manufactures and presumably the armament.

Return to “What if”