Munitions in WW1

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Munitions in WW1

#16

Post by Guaporense » 07 Jan 2010, 22:49

In WW1 production of ammunition and explosives was the most important sector of the munitions economy. In WW2 the most important sector of the munitions economy was the production of aircraft.

In 1942 the distribution of relative importance of the sector of German munitions production were:

Aircraft: 39%
Ammunition and explosives: 32%
Ships: 12%
Weapons: 7%
Vehicles: 5%
Tanks: 4%

So, aircraft was more important than ammunition and explosives, but no much more.
"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: Munitions in WW1

#17

Post by Guaporense » 07 Jan 2010, 22:50

Note that Germany produced 194 million rounds of artillery ammunition in 1942. More than in any year of WW1.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz


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

Re: Munitions in WW1

#18

Post by phylo_roadking » 07 Jan 2010, 23:23

More than in any year of WW1.
I wonder why...

....might it have something to do with the fact that as well as all the artillery pieces in so many calibres of German make, as well as thousands of captured weapons...

...there were all those tens of thousands of guns-on-tracks rumbling around the landscape? :wink:

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

Re: Munitions in WW1

#19

Post by Guaporense » 08 Jan 2010, 00:52

phylo_roadking wrote:
More than in any year of WW1.
I wonder why...

....might it have something to do with the fact that as well as all the artillery pieces in so many calibres of German make, as well as thousands of captured weapons...

...there were all those tens of thousands of guns-on-tracks rumbling around the landscape? :wink:
Germany had a larger economy in 1942 than in 1917. In 1942 Ger produced about 30 million tons of steel, in 1917, about 15.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

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

Re: Munitions in WW1

#20

Post by phylo_roadking » 08 Jan 2010, 01:49

Germany had a larger economy in 1942 than in 1917. In 1942 Ger produced about 30 million tons of steel, in 1917, about 15.
Got bugger all to do with it. That just means they COULD manufacture more than in WWI.

WHY - as in
I wonder why...
...they did do so wasn't economic factors - "because they could" - it was because they were fighting a war, and the shape of THAT war included tens of thousands more artillery pieces than in WWI....

...in the shape of tank guns, which are, after all - artillery pieces too :wink:

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

Re: Munitions in WW1

#21

Post by Jon G. » 08 Jan 2010, 02:07

I am too lazy to dig out books right now - but I'd guess that the increased amount of ammunition produced in WW2 relative to WW1 comes down to these factors:

1) Far more automatic weapons about in WW2 than in WW1.
2) Far more Flak guns about in WW2 than in WW1. That point probably holds particularly true for the Germans.
3) Far more wastage of both guns and ammunition in WW2 than in WW1 due to more fluid front lines.

I wonder how the comparison would come out if you measured ammunition produced by weight rather than by numbers? My guess would be that the Germans manufactured far more naval ammunition in WW1 than they did in WW2.

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 22:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

measured ammunition produced by weight

#22

Post by Dave Bender » 08 Jan 2010, 18:31

What counts (for army artillery) is the amount of high explosive delivered on target. Not shell weight or total number of shells. Any meaningful comparison of artillery ammunition usage should measure production of the high explosive filler.

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

Re: Munitions in WW1

#23

Post by Guaporense » 17 Mar 2010, 17:06

Also, in WW2 ammunition was produced in smaller calibers. So at least the difference in tonnage was smaller.

Also, unlike Germany, Britain produced much less heavy caliber ammunition in WW2 than in WW1. In WW1, they produced the order of 40 million field rounds per year of heavy caliber in 1917 and 1918, and a total of 87 million filled rounds in 1917. In WW2 Britain produced 14 million heavy rounds in 1943 and 12 million in 1944.

During WW1 Britain produced about 200 million rounds of filled shells of heavy rounds (i.e.: over 75 mm), in about 4 years, during 5 years of WW2 they produced only 72 million rounds. Germany in WW2 itself didn't produce much more than Britain in WW1: about 312 million heavy rounds between 1940 and 1944.

And another interesting factoid from War and Economy in the Third Reich, p. 346 : "Speer told his interrogators in 1945 that Hitler 'knew the supply figures of the last war in detail and could reproach us with the fact that the output in 1917/18 was higher than we could show in 1942. According to Speer 'there were requirements which had been fixed in his mind for a long time. They were in nearly every case three to six times the armament production in 1941". So, WW1 munitions levels weren't really lower than in WW2, at least in terms of ground combat munitions.
"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: measured ammunition produced by weight

#24

Post by Guaporense » 17 Mar 2010, 17:29

Dave Bender wrote:What counts (for army artillery) is the amount of high explosive delivered on target. Not shell weight or total number of shells. Any meaningful comparison of artillery ammunition usage should measure production of the high explosive filler.
They should use all types of data. Also, in WW2 Ger spent much more money in actual production of ammunition than production of explosives.
"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: Munitions in WW1

#25

Post by Guaporense » 17 Mar 2010, 17:33

Dave Bender wrote:
WW2 apparently ammunition production was significantly greater, even thought was relatively less important.
What makes you say that?

Artillery caused most battle casualties during WWI. It still causes most casualties during modern conventional conflicts.
Even more than air power? Because I would think that in the Gulf War that most casualties inflicted involved the use of aerial bombardment.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 22:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

Even more than air power?

#26

Post by Dave Bender » 17 Mar 2010, 19:33

Yes, provided we are talking about a conventional war like Desert Storm during 1991. Air power played an imporant role but it was the 7th Corps blitzkrieg that caused most of the Iraqi Army casualties.

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

Re: Munitions in WW1

#27

Post by Guaporense » 22 Mar 2010, 22:08

Really? Why the Iraqi artillery didn't cause many casualties in the coalition forces? The Iraqi military sucked so much?
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Munitions in WW1

#28

Post by LWD » 23 Mar 2010, 15:09

Guaporense wrote:In WW1 production of ammunition and explosives was the most important sector of the munitions economy.
What makes you say so?
In WW2 the most important sector of the munitions economy was the production of aircraft.
Was it? Again I'm not sure at all you are correct.
In 1942 the distribution of relative importance of the sector of German munitions production were:

Aircraft: 39%
Ammunition and explosives: 32%
Ships: 12%
Weapons: 7%
Vehicles: 5%
Tanks: 4%

So, aircraft was more important than ammunition and explosives, but no much more.
Ah, now I see. Largest does not necessarily mean most important. And you are basing a general statement on data from one year for one country. Not a particularly robust way of supporting a point.
Guaporense wrote:Really? Why the Iraqi artillery didn't cause many casualties in the coalition forces? The Iraqi military sucked so much?
OT but, in the lead up to the ground offensive as well as during it eliminating Iraqi artillery was a primary goal of coalition forces. Look up "artillery raids" in conjucntion with ODS and you'll get an idea of what was going on.
Guaporense wrote:Also, in WW2 ammunition was produced in smaller calibers.
Really? or do you mean the distribution was different among calibers.
... During WW1 Britain produced about 200 million rounds of filled shells of heavy rounds (i.e.: over 75 mm),
by choosing that defintion you essentially exclude WWII tank ammo at least from Britain and the US from the catagory of heavy rounds. There's also the question of how strict you are being ie is 76mm over 75mm and thus a "heavy round"?

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

Re: how many tons of explosives Britain or Ger

#29

Post by Guaporense » 13 Apr 2010, 17:07

Dave Bender wrote:Data is from "The Pity of War" by Niall Ferguson.

1914 explosivess
5,000 tons. Britain.
14,400 tons. Germany.

1915 explosives.
24,000 tons. Britain.
72,000 tons. Germany

1916 explosives.
76,000 tons. Britain.
120,000 tons. Germany

1917 explosives.
186,000 tons. Britain.
144,000 tons. Germany.
Compare to WW2 explosives production (second to the American Strategic Bombing Survey of the European War):

1940
168,500 tons. Germany

1941
230,400 tons. Germany

1942
290,830 tons. Germany.

1943
410,400 tons. Germany.

1944
495,000 tons. Germany.

The USSR made around 150,000 tons of explosives per year.
"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: Munitions in WW1

#30

Post by Guaporense » 13 Apr 2010, 17:32

LWD wrote:
Guaporense wrote:In WW1 production of ammunition and explosives was the most important sector of the munitions economy.
What makes you say so?
Knowledge of history.
In WW2 the most important sector of the munitions economy was the production of aircraft.
Was it? Again I'm not sure at all you are correct.
It was the largest sector for US, Britain, Germany and Japan. For the USSR, in the other hand, I don't know.
Guaporense wrote:Also, in WW2 ammunition was produced in smaller calibers.
Really? or do you mean the distribution was different among calibers.
Sorry, I meant that the distribution in ww2 production favored lighter calibers.
... During WW1 Britain produced about 200 million rounds of filled shells of heavy rounds (i.e.: over 75 mm),
by choosing that defintion you essentially exclude WWII tank ammo at least from Britain and the US from the catagory of heavy rounds. There's also the question of how strict you are being ie is 76mm over 75mm and thus a "heavy round"?
I think that data for Britain includes all ground ammo over 75mm. The data for the US that I have is rather vage concerning the use of ammo, but I suspect that includes the use by tanks (with, btw, was only a very small fraction of ammo consumption).
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”