80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1544
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Sep 2020 06:14

Art wrote:Of the remaining 60% a large part were either raw materials needed for munitions production
To be fair to O'Brien (he seems like a smart guy and is a courteous, fun person to interact with on social media), I think he would say those raw materials were intermediate goods priced into the final munitions outputs. But I agree that my "1/3" is a conservative estimate of what O'Brien's analysis missed.
Art wrote:Up to the year 1944, probably, the Soviet railroads had an excess of rolling stock. Simply because the length of operational railroads shrank very much as a result of occupation.
Lack of operating personnel as well. Harrison's work (Soviet Home Front IIRC) has much discussion of Soviet factories going without needed supplies and electricity during '41-'42, due to rail transport difficulties. You're right that they lost far more track-miles than rolling stock, but losing additional rolling stock probably wouldn't have made a difference in '42 absent the workers to operate them. This was true everywhere in the SU, with industries far to the rear seeing output declines due to manpower shortages (e.g. Caucasus oil fields, Karaganda/KuzBas coalfields).

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by stg 44 » 28 Sep 2020 14:09

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Sep 2020 06:14
Art wrote:Of the remaining 60% a large part were either raw materials needed for munitions production
To be fair to O'Brien (he seems like a smart guy and is a courteous, fun person to interact with on social media), I think he would say those raw materials were intermediate goods priced into the final munitions outputs. But I agree that my "1/3" is a conservative estimate of what O'Brien's analysis missed.
Have you raised the topic with him? I'd be curious to know what his response would be.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1544
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Sep 2020 22:41

stg 44 wrote:
28 Sep 2020 14:09
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Sep 2020 06:14
Art wrote:Of the remaining 60% a large part were either raw materials needed for munitions production
To be fair to O'Brien (he seems like a smart guy and is a courteous, fun person to interact with on social media), I think he would say those raw materials were intermediate goods priced into the final munitions outputs. But I agree that my "1/3" is a conservative estimate of what O'Brien's analysis missed.
Have you raised the topic with him? I'd be curious to know what his response would be.
I did but only in passing and didn't press the point. He sort of evaded and returned to the main discussion we were having.

Which is fine... social media isn't the forum for thesis defense. I'd like to see another scholar write a review/critique making my points in a forum where a deeper discussion with O'Brien might be had. I'd happily allow them to take credit for my part of the ideas.

AriX
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 29 Jun 2015 08:07
Location: Ukraine

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by AriX » 28 Sep 2020 23:33

Btw, about the manpower - from 16mln. in Wehrmacht and W-SS , only half served on the Eastern Front - if add to 4 mln KIA + 3mln.POWS + those who served there on rotation.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7684
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by Sid Guttridge » 29 Sep 2020 11:46

Hi Guys,

At the moment the tide of war turned in Europe in late 1942 probably 95% of German divisions actually engaged on an active front were in the East.

I am all in favour of letting the totalitarian states of Nazi Germany and the USSR tear each other to shreds with minimal Western Allied risk and loss. However, we should not then pretend that the wider war wasn't decided by the outcome of the conflict between them.

Most Anglo-American ground effort came only after the war had been decided on the Eastern Front. For example, at the time of the Soviet Stalingrad counter offensive on 19 November 1942, the German Army had already expended around 2,000 division/months fighting there and the Red Army perhaps twice as many division/months.

At that stage, if I am not mistaken, US ground forces had yet to encounter the German Army at all! In other words, at the turning point of the war in Europe, the US has spent no division/months engaging the German Army.

Cheers,

Sid.

krimsonglass51
Member
Posts: 229
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 23:03
Location: united states

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by krimsonglass51 » 29 Sep 2020 13:54

Sid Guttridge wrote:
29 Sep 2020 11:46
Hi Guys,

At the moment the tide of war turned in Europe in late 1942 probably 95% of German divisions actually engaged on an active front were in the East.

I am all in favour of letting the totalitarian states of Nazi Germany and the USSR tear each other to shreds with minimal Western Allied risk and loss. However, we should not then pretend that the wider war wasn't decided by the outcome of the conflict between them.

Most Anglo-American ground effort came only after the war had been decided on the Eastern Front. For example, at the time of the Soviet Stalingrad counter offensive on 19 November 1942, the German Army had already expended around 2,000 division/months fighting there and the Red Army perhaps twice as many division/months.

At that stage, if I am not mistaken, US ground forces had yet to encounter the German Army at all! In other words, at the turning point of the war in Europe, the US has spent no division/months engaging the German Army.

Cheers,

Sid.
The Soviets decided the course of the war in Europe for the Allies, but the Western Allies at least shortened the war thanks to the combined effects of Lend-Lease, the air campaign, and the land campaigns from 1944 onwards.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3060
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by stg 44 » 29 Sep 2020 16:21

krimsonglass51 wrote:
29 Sep 2020 13:54
The Soviets decided the course of the war in Europe for the Allies, but the Western Allies at least shortened the war thanks to the combined effects of Lend-Lease, the air campaign, and the land campaigns from 1944 onwards.
That's debatable given the manpower losses the Soviets had been taking. Without Wallied help the Soviets probably would have gassed out in manpower in 1943 given how much territory they recovered that year that provided the vital manpower to carry them through the end of the war and the territorial recovery being a function of increasing Wallied air and ground involvement in the war. That's before mentioning the impact of Lend Lease and diversion of Japanese attention.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1544
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 29 Sep 2020 18:09

stg44 wrote: Without Wallied help the Soviets probably would have gassed out in manpower in 1943
Do you have a summary of Soviet recruits from liberated territory? IIRC the re-enlistees alone were 900k per the NKVD (i.e. men who either walked home from the battle or joined the partisans).

OTOH the Soviet 18yo classes were ~2mil.

I don't see the Soviets running out of military-age manpower via casualties. Rather, they'd have started to lose territory again absent W.Allied help, which would cost them population, which means fewer workers, which means fewer weapons, which means you can't have as many in the field.

...which means further territorial losses, which means...

The post-Kursk '43 battles were the real climax of the Eastern Front and were fairly close-run despite the enormous Soviet manpower/equipment edge. If you throw the forces lost at Tunisgrad, the Italian Front forces, and OB West into Ukraine in '43, plus millions of shells fired OTL at W.Allied bombers and thousands of LW planes from the West, it's very easy to see a stalemate east of the Dniepr.

Then by '44 the Germans have converted from air/sea production to land production, actually outnumber the RKKA in tanks and mechanized forces, and start rolling east again.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 29 Sep 2020 22:21

stg 44 wrote:
29 Sep 2020 16:21
krimsonglass51 wrote:
29 Sep 2020 13:54
The Soviets decided the course of the war in Europe for the Allies, but the Western Allies at least shortened the war thanks to the combined effects of Lend-Lease, the air campaign, and the land campaigns from 1944 onwards.
That's debatable given the manpower losses the Soviets had been taking. Without Wallied help the Soviets probably would have gassed out in manpower in 1943 given how much territory they recovered that year that provided the vital manpower to carry them through the end of the war and the territorial recovery being a function of increasing Wallied air and ground involvement in the war. That's before mentioning the impact of Lend Lease and diversion of Japanese attention.
Mostest strange phrase you was write.

Nazis was not close on win war for to gas out so many Red army mens. On real history they was capture and kill many Red army mens but mostest far from enough to win war and they was normally gas civilians because they was communist homosexual gypsy or jewish not on reason Red army mens or Soviet mens.

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: 03 Oct 2008 20:06

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by LineDoggie » 30 Sep 2020 00:24

Michael Kenny wrote:
27 Sep 2020 03:14
LineDoggie wrote:
27 Sep 2020 01:41

When 70% of your rolling stock is from another Nation(s) giving it to you...
Perhaps it might have been wiser for you to find out how much 'rolling stock' the Soviets had prior to the war before posting. It could have saved you a lot of embarrassment.
I expected such as you to make light of Lend Lease aid to the Soviets, make fun of this then-



"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers',
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries.

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."


-Zhukov, Marshall of the Soviet union 1963

reflector gunsights for aircraft something the soviets could not make well

11 million pair boots

Waterproof field telephone wire (Something the Soviets could not manufacture for an odd reason

90% finish grade Machinetools for armaments production

Factory managers to increase efficiency and quality


https://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/_menu.php?c ... n%20Trucks
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6502
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by Michael Kenny » 30 Sep 2020 01:46

LineDoggie wrote:
30 Sep 2020 00:24

I expected such as you to make light of Lend Lease aid to the Soviets,

What I was trying to get you to do was look up the pre-war total stock of rail wagons (clue: it was in the millions) held by the Soviet Union and then compare this to the 11,000 (?) sent via LL and thus realise the colossal error you made by stating:

LineDoggie wrote:
27 Sep 2020 01:41
When 70% of your rolling stock is from another Nation(s) giving it to you...
But is seems you would rather reinforce your ignorance with :
LineDoggie wrote:
30 Sep 2020 00:24


11 million pair boots
Sounds impressive but...........

Assume the field Army was 11 million men at any one time. How many boots do you think you would need to shoe that many men for (say) 3 months?
Would 13 million be a fair estimate?
Thus LL boots would supply 3 months of the 35 WW2 lasted. Now 11 million boots are not unwelcome but anyone trying to claim the 11 million boots were 'decisive' is delusional.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3215
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by Richard Anderson » 30 Sep 2020 01:49

Toluene, finished propellants, and explosives. We've had this discussion before.
"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

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: 03 Oct 2008 20:06

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by LineDoggie » 30 Sep 2020 16:08

Michael Kenny wrote:
30 Sep 2020 01:46
LineDoggie wrote:
30 Sep 2020 00:24

I expected such as you to make light of Lend Lease aid to the Soviets,

What I was trying to get you to do was look up the pre-war total stock of rail wagons (clue: it was in the millions) held by the Soviet Union and then compare this to the 11,000 (?) sent via LL and thus realise the colossal error you made by stating:

LineDoggie wrote:
27 Sep 2020 01:41
When 70% of your rolling stock is from another Nation(s) giving it to you...
But is seems you would rather reinforce your ignorance with :
LineDoggie wrote:
30 Sep 2020 00:24


11 million pair boots
Sounds impressive but...........

Assume the field Army was 11 million men at any one time. How many boots do you think you would need to shoe that many men for (say) 3 months?
Would 13 million be a fair estimate?
Thus LL boots would supply 3 months of the 35 WW2 lasted. Now 11 million boots are not unwelcome but anyone trying to claim the 11 million boots were 'decisive' is delusional.
I see you totally ran from commenting about Marshall Zhukov's quote, didnt fit your bias perhaps

you seem to be obsessed with the boots, a fetish perhaps?
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by Yuri » 30 Sep 2020 16:38

LineDoggie wrote:
30 Sep 2020 16:08
Michael Kenny wrote:
30 Sep 2020 01:46
LineDoggie wrote:
30 Sep 2020 00:24

I expected such as you to make light of Lend Lease aid to the Soviets,

What I was trying to get you to do was look up the pre-war total stock of rail wagons (clue: it was in the millions) held by the Soviet Union and then compare this to the 11,000 (?) sent via LL and thus realise the colossal error you made by stating:

LineDoggie wrote:
27 Sep 2020 01:41
When 70% of your rolling stock is from another Nation(s) giving it to you...
But is seems you would rather reinforce your ignorance with :
LineDoggie wrote:
30 Sep 2020 00:24


11 million pair boots
Sounds impressive but...........

Assume the field Army was 11 million men at any one time. How many boots do you think you would need to shoe that many men for (say) 3 months?
Would 13 million be a fair estimate?
Thus LL boots would supply 3 months of the 35 WW2 lasted. Now 11 million boots are not unwelcome but anyone trying to claim the 11 million boots were 'decisive' is delusional.
I see you totally ran from commenting about Marshall Zhukov's quote, didnt fit your bias perhaps

you seem to be obsessed with the boots, a fetish perhaps?
This is not a quote from Marshal Zhukov. This was attributed to Marshal Zhukov by those schemers - people from the entourage of Marshal Malinovsky, with whom Marshal Zhukov was in a relationship that the Russians call "on knives". Marshal Malinovsky (then Minister of Defense) and his friends were very afraid that Marshal Zhukov might return from retirement and dismiss them from the armed forces. Marshal Zhukov himself categorically rejected this "quote" and explained who the author of "his quote"was. In addition, this "quote" is not translated correctly, although the meaning is preserved.

These schemers reported in "Khrushchev's ear" that Marshal Zhukov gave a very high rating to the memoirs of German generals, if this were the true history of the war itself.
Here is how Marshal Zhukov responded to these "accusations" (these words of Zhukov are recorded on magnetic tape):
"As for the German generals, as they write, truthfully or not. You can see my notes on the books I've read, and there are a lot of them. I believe that I have never met or read a more untrue story than the German generals wrote. I have such notes, however, are available".
So there is no need to "get away from the Zhukov quote" - it just wasn't there.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6502
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 80% Of German Equipment & Manpower Was On The Eastern Front

Post by Michael Kenny » 30 Sep 2020 17:14

LineDoggie wrote:
30 Sep 2020 16:08

I see you totally ran from commenting about Marshall Zhukov's quote
Do you mean the quote that the previous poster has exposed as another of your fictions?

When you use misleading and totally bogus numbers I am afraid I will not take anything you post seriously.
Try again later when you can work out what 70% of 750,000 is .

LineDoggie wrote:
30 Sep 2020 16:08
you seem to be obsessed with the boots, a fetish perhaps?
Yes that is it. Russian boots on Russian crushers................

https://youtu.be/ISbbZX794UM?t=72

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”