German vs. Allied war-making potential

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6365
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Michael Kenny » 16 Apr 2010 22:55

LWD wrote:I suspect the majority of 120mm was also used within Germany in the AA role as well. Looks to me more like a function of demand than industrial limitations.
Of the 13,000+ Heavy (21,000 light) flak guns in 1944 some 525 were single barrel 128mm and 31 twins. Ammo expenditure per kill for 128mm was 20% of 88mm.

Info from Edward B Westermann in 'Flak, Germans Anti-Aircraft Defenses 1941-45' (Univ Press of Kansas)

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Guaporense » 17 Apr 2010 01:38

Domen121 wrote:Guaporense, thanks for your data on German pre-war military financing.

Here some interesting data which compare German to Russian military potential:

http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/SovWarProd.html
Yeah, I know this site. It is a very good one.
"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 02:35
Location: USA

Re: Ammunition per personnel

Post by Guaporense » 17 Apr 2010 01:46

Michael Kenny wrote:
Guaporense wrote:around 10% of Germany's ammo was consumed for the anti aircraft role. this includes the anti aircraft ammo for the army and ammo for the defense of the reich.
Edward B Westermann in 'Flak, Germans Anti-Aircraft Defenses 1941-45' (Univ Press of Kansas)

3rd Quarter 1943 AA Ammo 20% of budget
4th Quarter 19%
1st Quarter 44 17%
2nd Quarter 16%
3rd Quarter 18%
4th Quarter 20%
Total of Wehrmacht budget allocated to Anti-Aircraft weapons in 1944 = 25%
You mean proportion of weapons allocated to the anti aircraft function...
By the fall of 1944 AA ammo consumption was 3.5 million 'heavy(over 70mm) and 12.5 million light per month.
Wastage(worn out) of 88mm guns was 380 a month in 1944 twice the 1943 rate.
In 1943 and 1944 HEAVY flak ammo accounted for 9% of total value.
In the last 6 months of the war AA ammunition production meant a decrease in munitions avalable for the Army.
Well, here is the source for your data:

http://wwiiarchives.net/servlet/document/149/294/0

Apparently, anti aircraft ammo consisted of 17% of total ammo consumed in 1944. A sizable proportion indeed.

But in 1941, anti aircraft ammo consisted of ~30% of ammo consumed. Interesting...
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6365
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Ammunition per personnel

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 Apr 2010 02:12

Guaporense wrote:[
Apparently, anti aircraft ammo consisted of 17% of total ammo consumed in 1944. A sizable proportion indeed.

But in 1941, anti aircraft ammo consisted of ~30% of ammo consumed. Interesting...
Explained in the book as a time when AA gun production was ramped up and after a period when AA ammo production had been reduced following the fall of France. Expansion and catch up.

takata_1940
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: 01 Jun 2007 05:48
Location: France

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by takata_1940 » 17 Apr 2010 11:35

Guaporense wrote:you people cannot pronounce "guaporense"?
GIGO = Garbage in, Garbage out, which seems to be fairly well fitting you as nickname. Are you going to publish a kind of book out of all those very usefull stats you posted here?
I'll suggest:
WWII statistics for dummies: how I pilled up plenty numbers without a single clue of their meaning; volume 1 (volume 2 to 9,871 to be published next week); By Nestor Gigo Guaporense, awarded Axis History Forum most dedicated garbage poster of the year 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 .
:lol:
S~
Olivier

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 14:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by mescal » 17 Apr 2010 12:27

Guaporense wrote:
mescal wrote: I fail to understand the meaning of the word "potential" in this sentence.
Potential production is not actually achieved production, no problem with that.
I think that it is kinda obvious that it would be the output without allied "interference".
Well, no we have transferred the problem to the definition od "interference".
Invading the Reich in 45 was a interference, but waht would you say that the potential german production in May 45 was ? Or looking it another way, do you take into account in the "interference" before the war began - for example the demands for the payment of the Versailles reparation in the 20s, which had a demonstrable significant effect on German economy up to late in the 30s ?
The problem here is that war and international diplomacy are only made of "interferences".
And pushing the logic to the limit, without any interference, there would be no need for any kind of "potential" for crafting weapons as there would be no war at all.

So no, I'm sorry but if at first glance my question may have seem naive, there is no obviousness in the definitions and the perimeter of what we want to take into account here.


Olivier,
WWII statistics for dummies: how I pilled up plenty numbers without a single clue of their meaning; volume 1 (volume 2 to 9,871 to be published next week); By Nestor Gigo Guaporense, awarded Axis History Forum most dedicated garbage poster of the year 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
I fear you're very optimistic.
It's not a happy thought, but as a principle, worse is always possible in the future.

And already today we have credible contenders.
See this thread or that one for example of stubbornness in garbage posting.
Olivier

Peter K
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3673
Joined: 12 Jul 2006 19:17
Location: Poland

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Peter K » 18 Apr 2010 17:53

Coming back to the discussion on motorization of German infantry divisions in 1939 from page 44:
takata_1940 wrote: Infantry Regiments (except one anti-tank platoon) and Artillery battalions (except command batteries) were all horse drawn.
The I. Welle ID had got 615 trucks, 394 cars (in total 1009), 527 motorcycles, 919 horse-drawn vehicles (4842 horses):

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Zus ... derung.htm

Number of vehicles in individual units of an Inf.Div. of 1939 / 1940 (according to LdW - they don't say which Welle):

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Zus ... derung.htm

Inf.Rgt. - 73 trucks & cars, 47 motorcycles, 210 horse-drawn vehicles (ca. 600 horses *) x 3
Art.Rgt. - 156 trucks & cars, 57 motorcycles, 240 horse-drawn vehicles (ca. 2,200 horses *)
Pz.Abw.Abt. - 114 trucks & cars, 45 motorcycles
Pi.Btl. - 72 trucks & cars, 32 motorcycles, 28 horse-drawn vehicles (71 horses)
Nachr.Abt. - 103 trucks & cars, 32 motorcycles, 7 horse-drawn vehicles (52 horses)
Aufkl.Abt. - 49 trucks & cars, 50 motorcycles, 260 horses
--------------------------------------------------------
other divisional units - ?

* without Reitpferde

This gives 713 trucks & cars + 357 motorcycles + 905 horse-drawn vehicles (so almost all - only 14 lack).

But where exactly were the remaining - and still lacking - 296 trucks & cars + 170 motorcycles?

takata_1940
Member
Posts: 469
Joined: 01 Jun 2007 05:48
Location: France

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by takata_1940 » 18 Apr 2010 20:16

Hi Domen,
Domen121 wrote:Coming back to the discussion on motorization of German infantry divisions in 1939 from page 44:
takata_1940 wrote: Infantry Regiments (except one anti-tank platoon) and Artillery battalions (except command batteries) were all horse drawn.
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Zus ... derung.htm
But where exactly were the remaining - and still lacking - 296 trucks & cars + 170 motorcycles?
Correction of my post: it is a motorized anti-tank company (not platoon) per regiment and other vehicles are for staff/liaison/supply. The Infantry guns are horse-drawn. Looking at other vehicles, clicking the link you provided, you may find them with staff and support/supply troops:

Divisionskommando
. Divisionskartenstelle (mot.)
. Kradmeldezug

Nachschub/Versorgungsdienste
. 8 x Nachschubkolonnen (mot) 30to
. Betriebsstoffkolonne (mot.) 25cbm
. Werkstattkompanie (mot.)
. Nachschubkompanie (mot.)

Sanitätsdienste
. 2 x Krankenkraftwagenzüge
. Sanitätskompanie (mot.)
. Sanitätskompanie
. Feldlazarett (mot.)

Veterinärdienste
. Veterinärkompanie

Verwaltungsdienste
. Verpflegungsamt
. Bäckereikompanie (mot.)
. Schlächtereizug (mot.)
. Feldgendarmerietrupp (mot.)
. Feldpostamt (mot.)

S~
Olivier

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Apr 2010 20:20

Olivier,
WWII statistics for dummies: how I pilled up plenty numbers without a single clue of their meaning; volume 1 (volume 2 to 9,871 to be published next week); By Nestor Gigo Guaporense, awarded Axis History Forum most dedicated garbage poster of the year 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
I fear you're very optimistic.
It's not a happy thought, but as a principle, worse is always possible in the future
Quite true - after all, we might not be around to give a toss after 2012! :lol:
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Guaporense » 20 Apr 2010 16:10

takata_1940 wrote:
Jon G. wrote:
Guaporense wrote:...
Also, in 1944 Germany made 19,000 Panzers, the US made 20,500 tanks and SP guns in the same year, and German tanks were heavier. In terms of ground combat munitions, Germany produced comparable quantities to the US. The US superiority came from Navy and Air-force production.
Why make the comparison for 1944?? That was the year when German tank production peaked (and your figure includes turretless, and therefore less labour-costly STUGs, as The Enigma points out) whereas American tank production was ramping down by that year since it was becoming obvious that the war was won.
There is various datasets for production figures, but tank production should be measured by type of vehicle (Tank, Assault Gun, SP Guns, etc.) and by weight.

Concerning the German tank output for 1944, I've got (Hahn):
Pz Kpfw IV: 3,225 (26t)
Pz Kpfw V: 3,777 (46t)
Pz Kpfw VI: 623 (57t)
Königstiger: 376 (70t)
Total: 8,001
Weight: 319,423 tons.

USA (Sherman only)
M1A4s: 12,925 (32t)
Weight: 413,600 tons.

S~
Olivier
German Panzer production in 1944, weight:

548,575 metric tons
of with: 313,755 tons of tanks

In 1943: 325,379 tons, of with 203,615 tons of tanks.

source: USSBS

American armored vehicle production in 1944 (source: Wikipedia):

M4: 12,925 (30.3 metric tons)
M36: 1,400 (29 tons)
M7: 1,164 (22.97 tons)
M26: 40 (41.7 tons)
M24: 1,930 (18.4 tons)
M18: 1,695 (17.7 tons)
M5 & M8: 1,963 (16.3 tons)
M22: 150 (7.4 tons)

total: 559,253 metric tons

American armored vehicle production in 1943 (peak production):

M4: 21,231 (30.3 tons)
M10: 6,067 (29.6 tons)
M7: 786 (29 tons)
M22: 680 (7.4 tons)
M18: 812 (17.7 tons)
M5 & M8: 4,063 (16.3 tons)
M3: 3,469 (14.7 tons)

total: 982,302 metric tons

Soviet union armored vehicle production (source: wikipedia):

1943:
T-34: 15,812 (26.5 tons)
SU-122: 630 (30.9 tons)
SU-85: 750 (29.6 tons)
T-70: 3,343 (9.2 tons)
SU-76: 1,928 (10.6 tons)
KV-1S: 452 (45 tons)
KV-8: 35 (45 tons)
KV-85: 130 (46 tons)
IS-2: 102 (46 tons)
SU-152: 704 (45.5 tons)
ISU-122/152: 35 (45.5 tons)

total: 578,089 metric tons

1944:
T-34: 3,500 (26.5 tons)
T-34-85: 10,449 (32 tons)
SU-122: 493 (30.9 tons)
SU-85: 1,300 (29.6 tons)
SU-100: 500 (31.6 tons)
SU-76: 7,155 (10.6 tons)
IS-2: 2,252 (46 tons)
ISU-122/152: 2,510 (45.5 tons)

total: 790,272 tons

Total for 1943-44:

Germany: 873,954 tons
US: 1,541,555 tons
USSR: 1,368,361 tons

Average price per ton of AFV:
Germany: 3,750 Rm
US: 1,650 US$
USSR: 7,300 rubles

value:

Germany: 3,277 millions of Rm
US: 2,544 millions of US$ dollars
USSR: 9,990 millions of rubles

Combat munitions produced in each country:
Germany: 70 billion Rm
US: 80 billion dollars
USSR: 100.1 billion rubles

AFV value in proportion of combat munitions:
Germany: 4,68%
US: 3,18%
USSR: 9,98%
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by LWD » 20 Apr 2010 18:12

And your point is?

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by bf109 emil » 20 Apr 2010 20:30

LWD wrote:And your point is?
good point as if we are measuring "POTENTIAL" lets look also look at what increase nations increased their potential over what Germany might have already been manufacturing as in all essence any "Potential" was already in the fold.

I'm not praising or touting a horn, but if we are looking at potential, what potential did Canada have in 1939?? and whom would have known that when all was said and done, Canada would end the war with the third largest navy in the world (behind USN and RN) and the 4th largest air-force (behind the USAAF, RAF and SU)

whom would have known Canada would end the war with the most mobile army in the world having 1 military transport for every 3 soldiers.

end up producing the second highest tonnage of Aluminum closely behind the USA, etc.

I'm sure their are other countries which went from no potential to increasing her production 10 fold if not more. IMHO I don't think Germany increased her potential on this scale other then ramping up what was for the most part an economy which in most lights already reached close to her potential early in the war, and was apt to only squeeze out a few more arms due to increases in production, but nothing in the light or potential as those nations which came along a few years later in terms both potential and increasing on a % bases.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Guaporense » 20 Apr 2010 22:54

LWD wrote:And your point is?
Just adding knowledge to the pool.

Why are you so provocative?
"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 02:35
Location: USA

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Guaporense » 20 Apr 2010 23:12

bf109 emil wrote:I'm sure their are other countries which went from no potential to increasing her production 10 fold if not more. IMHO I don't think Germany increased her potential on this scale other then ramping up what was for the most part an economy which in most lights already reached close to her potential early in the war, and was apt to only squeeze out a few more arms due to increases in production, but nothing in the light or potential as those nations which came along a few years later in terms both potential and increasing on a % bases.
1- Canada's industrial potential was 10% of Germany. At most. In 1944 they produced about 1.5 billion US$ dollars of munitions, with is 3 billion Rm, Germany produced 39 billion Rm, with 90% of their factories working at only single shifts, while Canada's industry worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

2- Between 1938 and 1943 Germany's industrial capital stock increased by 40% (in 5 years), roughly the same rate of increase of the US's industrial capital stock between 1939 to 1945 (with increased 60% over a period of 6 years). Germany's industrial capacity increased right to the end of 1944, by late 1944 installed electric generating capacity was 50% higher than in 1940. Their machine tool stock was also 50% larger than in 1940.

3- When comparing the evolution of Germany's war making potential to the allies, it should be compared to the USSR's and UK's also. Both countries didn't increase their industrial capital stock by the same scale as Germany, UK's industry increased in capacity by a modest amount, while the USSR's warmaking potential decreased! Even in 1945, Soviet industrial production was valued at 71.9 billion rubles, while in 1940 it was 75.1 billion rubles. (1937 prices) (source: The Economics of WW2, chapter 7).
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by bf109 emil » 21 Apr 2010 06:36

Canada's industrial potential was 10% of Germany. At most. At most. In 1944 they produced about 1.5 billion US$ dollars of munitions, with is 3 billion Rm, Germany produced 39 billion Rm, with 90% of their factories working at only single shifts, while Canada's industry worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
can you provide sources as to Germany only working 1 shift or 8 hours a day in 1944 and Canada working 24 hours 7 days a week? please please list this source showing Canada's plants ran 24/7...thank you...and which plants worked these kinda hours!!

also a source you claim showing just 1.5 billion dollars worth of munitions for the year 1944! plus at an exchange rate of 4 RM to the dollar the total you list is 6 million RM not 3 million as incorrectly stated or close to 15%, yet since canda produced over 11 billion worth of munitions during the war which equals 44 Billion RM, more then then all the total for Germany in her most productive year, it is hard to see why when compared to even the small country of Canada with 1/10 the population of the Reich, the dis-advantage of slave labor, a favorable exchange rate which worked in Germany's favor and the absence of $$ from raping of other nations economies it is of little wonder why Germany's war potentail was far behind that of her foe.


but as asked before what was the potential for Canada in 1939 and yes there potential was greater by a vastly increase in production from 1939 in comparison to Germany.

Canada's aid to Britain and her lend lease...

Canada became an arsenal, and was Britain’s chief overseas supplier of war materiel.

Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid", supplying its allies with four billion dollars worth of war materiel. A further credit of a billion dollars was given to Britain.

Return to “Economy”