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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by phylo_roadking » 31 May 2010 00:42

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
Really??? 8O Naval warfare is more "munitions intensive" ( :lol: ) than ground warfare? Care to illustrate that with properly-sourced material?
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
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 31 May 2010 01:40

Were not Naval artillery used to bombard German positions on D-day. I wonder if he factored it in his calculations. I mean RN vs German Army should have rather fabulous casualty exchange ratio on that occasion....

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 01:39
Location: New Zealand

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by JonS » 31 May 2010 01:49

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:I wonder if he factored it in his calculations.
I doubt it. As G has demonstrated repeatedly, the best way to deal with anything that might sully ones PoV is to simply ignore it, then when that position becomes untenable airily declare it irrelevant.

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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by ljadw » 31 May 2010 08:28

JonS wrote:
Oleg Grigoryev wrote:I wonder if he factored it in his calculations.
I doubt it. As G has demonstrated repeatedly, the best way to deal with anything that might sully ones PoV is to simply ignore it, then when that position becomes untenable airily declare it irrelevant.
:lol: :P

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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by LWD » 01 Jun 2010 13:31

phylo_roadking wrote:
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
Really??? 8O Naval warfare is more "munitions intensive" ( :lol: ) than ground warfare? Care to illustrate that with properly-sourced material?
I'm pretty sure he's using the most general defintion of "munitions" ie
Munitions: (DOD Definition) "Material used in war, especially weapons and ammunition."
from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... index.html
I tend to think in terms of the more restrictive definition i.e. ammunition. Using the above definition he may have a point as ships would be considered material I suppose. Not sure about trains and whether supply ships carrying army supplies count or where.

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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Guaporense » 02 Jun 2010 22:59

phylo_roadking wrote:
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
Really??? 8O Naval warfare is more "munitions intensive" ( :lol: ) than ground warfare? Care to illustrate that with properly-sourced material?
You don't know what munitions are...
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15115
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by Andy H » 02 Jun 2010 23:09

Guaporense

Rather than making sly comments can you please answer Phylo's query regarding your previous statement about munitions!

Regards

Andy H

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 » 04 Jun 2010 19:02

Andy, I can do no better than cite the Forum rules...
Care to illustrate that with properly-sourced material?
When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.
:wink:
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 » 24 Jul 2010 19:17

Andy H wrote:Guaporense

Rather than making sly comments can you please answer Phylo's query regarding your previous statement about munitions!

Regards

Andy H
LWD had already provided that. Though not very complete info.

The point is that naval and aerial warfare are more munitions intensive than land warfare in the sense that the per soldier supply of equipment, ammunition and supplies is greater in air and the sea than in ground warfare. Ground warfare is the poor man's type of war, when compared to aerial warfare and naval warfare.

This is also obvious to anyone.
Last edited by Guaporense on 24 Jul 2010 19:19, edited 1 time in total.
"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 » 24 Jul 2010 19:19

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:Were not Naval artillery used to bombard German positions on D-day. I wonder if he factored it in his calculations. I mean RN vs German Army should have rather fabulous casualty exchange ratio on that occasion....
If German army have big guns, poor RN. Since a ship is a very big target, easier to hit than anything on the ground.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by ljadw » 24 Jul 2010 19:33

Guaporense wrote:
Andy H wrote:Guaporense

Rather than making sly comments can you please answer Phylo's query regarding your previous statement about munitions!

Regards

Andy H
LWD had already provided that. Though not very complete info.

The point is that naval and aerial warfare are more munitions intensive than land warfare in the sense that the per soldier supply of equipment, ammunition and supplies is greater in air and the sea than in ground warfare. Ground warfare is the poor man's type of war, when compared to aerial warfare and naval warfare.

This is also obvious to anyone.
no,it is not obvious to me 8-) ,because your statement is glibberish 8-)
what do you mean:per soldier? while it is so that a bomber could carry more weight of bomb than a tank,to say that the supply of equipment ,ammunition and supplies was greater in air and sea than in ground warfare is very debatable .And also meaningless.I could also reply that per soldier more equipment ,ammunitionand suuplies were needed in air and sea than in ground warfare. 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 » 25 Jul 2010 05:02

German vs. Allied war-making potential...who won? nuff said

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 » 07 May 2011 22:22

In 1939 three mot. infantry regiments numbered 9318 soldiers (3106 each with 864 per each battalion) and had 6780 rifles, 2536 pistols, 264 LMGs, 126 HMGs, 36 AT guns, 81 light mortars, 54 heavy mortars, 24 infantry guns, etc.

This required the following number of motor vehicles (765 trucks, 489 cars, 714 motorcycles, 84 trailers):
tab_5.jpg
The entire 13. Inf.Div.(mot.) numbered 16445 soldiers including:

Divisional artillery units numbered:

- each le.Art.Abt. (light artillery battalions) - 540 (x 3)
- s.Art.Abt. (heavy artillery battalion)- 554
- Beob.Abt. (observation battalion) - 572

In total artillery numbered 2837 soldiers (apart from battalions also regimental units including HQ).

Out of these 16445:

14667 (442 Offz., 72 Beamte, 2220 Uffz., 11933 Mannsch.) in combat units, including:

- 9318 in infantry regiments
- 2837 in artillery units
- 386 in recon battalion
- 519 in AT battalion
- 189 in MG company
- 831 in pioneer battalion
- 424 in signal battalion

The rest of them would be in divisional HQ, etc.

1778 (50 Offz., 61 Beamte, 236 Uffz., 1431 Mannsch.) in rear units, including:

- 984 in supply services
- 208 in administration services
- 531 in sanitary services
- 37 in law enforcement services
- 18 in field police
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010 06:39
Location: Philippines

The 300 U-boats ?

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 17 Jul 2011 06:54

Guaporense wrote:
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.
That was Dönitz requirements to defeat the British merchant fleet. A submarine man through and through, he wanted lots of U-Boats. With a large submarine force, he felt that any potential maritime enemy could be blockaded and starved into submission. He was nearly right. Actually, Dönitz submarine force in service in the beginning of the war were only 56, of which only 22 were of types capable of ocean service.

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

Re: German vs. Allied war-making potential

Post by ljadw » 17 Jul 2011 07:41

If you will look at "causes and effects of the UBoatwar",you will see thar it was impossible for Germany to have 300 UBoats in 1939,and I doubt very much that they could starve Britain with that number ,the number of operational UBoats being only 60-70 .

Return to “Economy”