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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by LWD » 21 Apr 2010 12:24

Guaporense wrote:
LWD wrote:And your point is?
Just adding knowledge to the pool.
Why are you so provocative?
This thread has been a discussion/argument about the relative "war-making potential" of the the allies and Germany. I assumed your post was in some way relevant to that. It wasn't at all clear to me how though. I take it from your response I was wrong?

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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Guaporense » 21 Apr 2010 13:20

Well, LWD, i showed that Germany's tank production was smaller than the allied production and that the USSR put a much larger proportion of their resources into tank production than Germany and the US.
"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 » 21 Apr 2010 17:08

Guaporense wrote:Well, LWD, i showed that Germany's tank production was smaller than the allied production
I doubt anyone reading this thread thought otherwise. And much more complete data is readily available and posted elsewhere.
and that the USSR put a much larger proportion of their resources into tank production than Germany and the US.
No, actually you didn't.

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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Guaporense » 23 Apr 2010 00:05

LWD wrote:
Guaporense wrote:Well, LWD, i showed that Germany's tank production was smaller than the allied production
I doubt anyone reading this thread thought otherwise. And much more complete data is readily available and posted elsewhere.
About tank tonnage? I don't think so.
and that the USSR put a much larger proportion of their resources into tank production than Germany and the US.
No, actually you didn't.
[/quote]

Sure, expenditures in tanks in proportion to expenditures in armaments are useless statistics.
"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 » 23 Apr 2010 12:27

Guaporense wrote:
LWD wrote:
Guaporense wrote:Well, LWD, i showed that Germany's tank production was smaller than the allied production
I doubt anyone reading this thread thought otherwise. And much more complete data is readily available and posted elsewhere.
About tank tonnage? I don't think so.
You only gave data for two years. There is data even in places like wiki for the entire war. Calculating the tonnage might require a minimal amount of arithmatic but is hardly necessary given the disperity in numbers.
and that the USSR put a much larger proportion of their resources into tank production than Germany and the US.
No, actually you didn't.
Sure, expenditures in tanks in proportion to expenditures in armaments are useless statistics.[/quote]
I didn't say that. What it should have been clear that I meant was that your numbers do not show that "the USSR put a much larger proportion of their resources into tank produciton than Germany and the US". They may indeed have done so but what you presented is a long way from showing that.

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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Guaporense » 26 Apr 2010 00:32

my god.
"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 » 26 Apr 2010 06:47

Guaporense wrote:Well, LWD, i showed that Germany's tank production was smaller than the allied production and that the USSR put a much larger proportion of their resources into tank production than Germany and the US.
On what percentage of each countries military budget...

i.e. if Germany spends a total war budget(for example puposes) a billion RM and a hundred million went to tank production, this would mean Germany spent the remaining 90% of their budget on other munitions, and 10 % on tanks...similarly if the Soviet Union spent a total war budget total of (an example again) of 1 billion rubles and two hundred million went to tank production, we also have to note that the USSR spent a lesser percentage on other munitions.

Regardless of resources between each nation, a certain % of total spending went towards each item. With the USA, Germany and GB all having to spend a greater % on say a Navy as opposed to the USSR, then sure a larger overall percentage of their budget could be spent on Tanks in relationship to it's total spending. Likewise if Britain had either signed a peace and Germany did not need further spending on U-Boats, fighters, etc. , then basic economics tells us that Germany's budget if combating only the USSR would have a higher % spent on tanks and bombers in relationship to the budget or total $ spent by Germany in funding the Wehrmacht, irregardless of what percentage of the economy as a total, whether one nation devoted a 100% of their economy to war or 10% of their economy, the basic outline for dollars and percent spent on each items when divided into the total spent still derives at a % each Nation was willing to spend and in what ares or weapon.

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by The_Enigma » 26 Apr 2010 13:05

I think my head just imploded!

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Peter H » 27 Apr 2010 10:21

Let's limit the one liners please.

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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Guaporense » 12 May 2010 20:40

bf109 emil wrote:
Guaporense wrote:Well, LWD, i showed that Germany's tank production was smaller than the allied production and that the USSR put a much larger proportion of their resources into tank production than Germany and the US.
On what percentage of each countries military budget...

i.e. if Germany spends a total war budget(for example puposes) a billion RM and a hundred million went to tank production, this would mean Germany spent the remaining 90% of their budget on other munitions, and 10 % on tanks...similarly if the Soviet Union spent a total war budget total of (an example again) of 1 billion rubles and two hundred million went to tank production, we also have to note that the USSR spent a lesser percentage on other munitions.
Of all great powers, Germany spent a smaller proportion in munitions and a larger proportion in military pay. That was reflected in their larger proportion of workforce mobilized into the armed forces and smaller proportion of the workforce mobilized into the munitions sector (second to Harrison (1988), by 1943, 14% of the German labor force worked in munitions production while 21% of the British, 19% of the American labor force was employed in munitions production).

I calculated the expenditures on tank over the expenditures on combat related munitions (with usually made up 70% of total munitions production).
Regardless of resources between each nation, a certain % of total spending went towards each item. With the USA, Germany and GB all having to spend a greater % on say a Navy as opposed to the USSR, then sure a larger overall percentage of their budget could be spent on Tanks in relationship to it's total spending.
For US and UK, the production of naval vessels consumed 25% of total armament production (second largest sector in the munitions industry after aircraft for these nations). For Germany, between 5-10% (naval vessels weren't the most important item in their munitions economy). For the USSR, ~1%.

In other statistic, second to Art, in 1943 the USSR allocated 16.5% of their steel supply to tank production, while Germany allocated 6.5% of their steel to tank production. Actually, Soviet war doctrine was more focused on tanks than Germany's.
Likewise if Britain had either signed a peace and Germany did not need further spending on U-Boats, fighters, etc. , then basic economics tells us that Germany's budget if combating only the USSR would have a higher % spent on tanks and bombers in relationship to the budget or total $ spent by Germany in funding the Wehrmacht, irregardless of what percentage of the economy as a total, whether one nation devoted a 100% of their economy to war or 10% of their economy, the basic outline for dollars and percent spent on each items when divided into the total spent still derives at a % each Nation was willing to spend and in what ares or weapon.
True. But I believe it wouldn't be much higher, Germany's tank production was above losses for nearly the entire war (up to January 1945). Soviet tank production in the other hand, was below losses for some periods (second half of 1941 and 1943 and the first 4 months of 1945).
"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 » 18 May 2010 07:23

Soviet tank production in the other hand, was below losses for some periods (second half of 1941 and 1943 and the first 4 months of 1945).
although a large number of Soviet tanks where lost in 1941, I can see where Soviet production fell below tanks lost simply because they out produced Germany and where able to use armor to defeat Germany and in doing so lost a number of tanks exceeding production, unlike Germany which after 1943 could never muster enough tanks to turn the tide or force a defeat upon another nation....

Even with huge tank losses by the Soviets, did Germany ever come near the production totals the Soviets where able to produce from 1942 until the end of the war in any 1 single month?

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: German vs. Allied technology

Post by RichTO90 » 22 May 2010 04:27

Guaporense wrote:German subs sank about 20 million tons of shipping. American subs never sank more than a fraction of that.

The fact is that Japan only made 3-4 million tons of shipping while the US+Britain made nearly 40 million tons, so Germany would have to sunk much more to starve out Britain.

If Germany had 300 U-boats in 1939 they could sank about 10 million tons per year, while Britain had only 16 million tons of shipping, so in less than two years the country would be starved out.
Just checking some more crap figures...

German subs (and Italian) actually sank a total of 14,593,987 tons of Allied merchant shipping, not 20-million. Hm, roughly a 25% exaggeration again...are we starting to see a pattern? Is it compulsive mendacity or sheer ignorance I wonder? :roll:

American subs sank 4,779,902 tons of Japanese merchant shipping (not including probables and sinkings by Allied subs). So yes, a "fraction" of that sunk by the Germans...33% is a "fraction" after all.

OTOH the proportional losses inflicted by the US sub fleet was about 60% of the Japanese merchant fleet on hand and built during the war. And the German effort? An insignificant fraction of those results.

You can "prove" anything if you make up the numbers as you go along. Gee, I wonder what next? :roll:
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10229
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by ljadw » 22 May 2010 08:06

Guaporensis :ilness first detected in Brazil ;characteristics :obsession that the US were no good in WWII;incurable 8-)

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 » 27 May 2010 18:35

Gua wrote'
Of all great powers, Germany spent a smaller proportion in munitions and a larger proportion in military pay.
another Germany folly, deeming pocket money for troops more important then weapons in which to fight. No wonder Germany got whooped.
That was reflected in their larger proportion of workforce mobilized into the armed forces and smaller proportion of the workforce mobilized into the munitions sector
and yet another German folly as German industry was a smaller cottage type using highly skilled labor, their plucking skilled workers from factories and handing them a K98, while replacing skilled workers with un-skilled, forced labor, POW's and Untermenschen with little or no pay. By the above statement it would appear or assume that the German workforce was reduced during the war, and yet turned out more munitions, which simply wasn't the case as perhaps less Germans where employed, yet on a whole employment went up, just now Germany never had to pay them.

This might have aided Germany financially by now paying workers little if no pay at all, but it also did ensure the productivity, even after factories increased in size could never produce the quality or quantity of munitions that would have been made had Germany kept their skilled and trained workers in place, rather then using as cannon fodder so to speak.

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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Guaporense » 31 May 2010 00:25

bf109 emil wrote:Gua wrote'
Of all great powers, Germany spent a smaller proportion in munitions and a larger proportion in military pay.
another Germany folly, deeming pocket money for troops more important then weapons in which to fight. No wonder Germany got whooped.
No. I was because Germany focused on ground warfare, while Britain and the US focused on the Navy and Airforce, with are more munitions intensive.

The USSR also spent more on munitions than Germany, but that was because their manpower was very cheap!
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Return to “Economy”