Munitions in WW1
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Munitions in WW1
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 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
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Munitions in WW1
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
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Munitions in WW1
I wonder why...More than in any year of WW1.
....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?
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Munitions in WW1
Germany had a larger economy in 1942 than in 1917. In 1942 Ger produced about 30 million tons of steel, in 1917, about 15.phylo_roadking wrote:I wonder why...More than in any year of WW1.
....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?
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Munitions in WW1
Got bugger all to do with it. That just means they COULD manufacture more than in WWI.Germany had a larger economy in 1942 than in 1917. In 1942 Ger produced about 30 million tons of steel, in 1917, about 15.
WHY - as in
...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....I wonder why...
...in the shape of tank guns, which are, after all - artillery pieces too
Re: Munitions in WW1
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3533
- Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 22:21
- Location: Michigan U.S.A.
measured ammunition produced by weight
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.
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Munitions in WW1
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.
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
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: measured ammunition produced by weight
They should use all types of data. Also, in WW2 Ger spent much more money in actual production of ammunition than production of explosives.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.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Munitions in WW1
Even more than air power? Because I would think that in the Gulf War that most casualties inflicted involved the use of aerial bombardment.Dave Bender wrote:What makes you say that?WW2 apparently ammunition production was significantly greater, even thought was relatively less important.
Artillery caused most battle casualties during WWI. It still causes most casualties during modern conventional conflicts.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz
-
- Member
- Posts: 3533
- Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 22:21
- Location: Michigan U.S.A.
Even more than air power?
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.
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Munitions in WW1
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
Re: Munitions in WW1
What makes you say so?Guaporense wrote:In WW1 production of ammunition and explosives was the most important sector of the munitions economy.
Was it? Again I'm not sure at all you are correct.In WW2 the most important sector of the munitions economy was the production of aircraft.
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.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.
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:Really? Why the Iraqi artillery didn't cause many casualties in the coalition forces? The Iraqi military sucked so much?
Really? or do you mean the distribution was different among calibers.Guaporense wrote:Also, in WW2 ammunition was produced in smaller calibers.
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"?... During WW1 Britain produced about 200 million rounds of filled shells of heavy rounds (i.e.: over 75 mm),
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: how many tons of explosives Britain or Ger
Compare to WW2 explosives production (second to the American Strategic Bombing Survey of the European War):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.
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
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Munitions in WW1
Knowledge of history.LWD wrote:What makes you say so?Guaporense wrote:In WW1 production of ammunition and explosives was the most important sector of the munitions economy.
It was the largest sector for US, Britain, Germany and Japan. For the USSR, in the other hand, I don't know.Was it? Again I'm not sure at all you are correct.In WW2 the most important sector of the munitions economy was the production of aircraft.
Sorry, I meant that the distribution in ww2 production favored lighter calibers.Really? or do you mean the distribution was different among calibers.Guaporense wrote:Also, in WW2 ammunition was produced in smaller calibers.
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).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"?... During WW1 Britain produced about 200 million rounds of filled shells of heavy rounds (i.e.: over 75 mm),
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz