German vs. Soviet production in 1942

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

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Guaporense » 17 Oct 2010 18:39

Jon G. wrote:I don't want to steal RichTO90's thunder, but this is so off the wall that I can't help but comment -
Guaporense wrote:...My point was that while the USSR produced more tanks than Germany, it only meant that in this very restricted class of equipment their production was greater.
That is an earth-shattering observation. The Soviets built more tanks than the Germans because their production was greater? Are you sure?
You misusderstood, intentionally or not.
Like the fact that Japan made more battleships over 60,000 tons than the US (which is true, but tell us nothing about the countries relative industrial potential).
Like, the US built more battleships under 60,000 tons than Japan? This is the sort of wisdom which leaves me breathless.
Like the fact that Germany made a greater number of not fully tracked AFVs than the USSR.
The fact that the USSR produced more tanks than Germany also doesn't tell us about the relative industrial potential, only that the USSR focused a greater proportion of their resources into the production of tanks.
And one way of measuring said potential could eg. be by counting how many tanks either nation built during WW2.

But I can understand your desire to warp the discussion. After all, your point about Germany having more material resources (or is that 'human resources'? or 'industrial commodities' or whatever other fuzzy definition is your flavour of the moment) has been full and well falsified upthread. Facile observations don't change that.
Falsified? Where?

I didn't see any counter argument to the points I have raised. Only the showing of biases.
"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. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Guaporense » 17 Oct 2010 18:42

Guaporense wrote:
RichTO90 wrote:
Guaporense wrote:Not the resources used to make munitions.
Ah, I see, so now the definition has become undefined "resources"? And the measurement is randomly selected raw materials rather than finished goods? How...flexible? :roll:
Machine tools are finished goods. Also, the difference in stock in machine tools was greater than the difference in production for UK, Germany's stock was 3 times UK's, while production was only a little more than twice.

Also, the US production of these raw materials exceeded Germany and were several time the added sum of UK's and USSR's production.
So the UK is now an isolated island, incapable of drawing from more than its own insular resources? So the 2.8-million tons of steel produced and consumed by Canada as well as the 2.8-million tons freely imported to Britain from the US don't count because they aren't dug out of the ground on Perfidious Albion? :roll: But, in some strange twist of reality, steel produced in France does? BTW, either your inveterate dishonesty or your equally inveterate inattention to detail is showing again; your own source rounded correctly would give Britain 13-million tons (12.968). :lol:
My point was that Germany controlled more resources than UK+USSR, while with American help they could have reduced of bridged this difference.

I can include Canadian production of iron, steel and machine tools and it won't change the fact that UK+USSR had smaller production of these raw materials than Germany. I can also exclude the occupied territories from Germany's supply of these raw materials and it still is higher than the sum of Canadian, British and Soviet production.

Steel production, 1943, thousands of metric tons:

Germany: 30,603
occupied territories: 4,041
total: 34,644
source: http://wwiiarchives.net/servlet/document/149/263/0

UK: 13,239
USSR: 8,475
Canada: 2,725
total: 24,439
sources: http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/sovprod.html, http://books.google.com.br/books?id=RxF ... el&f=false

You can also include imports from the US (2.8 million tons) and their supply would still be smaller than the German supply.
They didn't have the natural resources, like florests and rivers, that USSR and the British empire had. Nor they had more illiterate peasants. They only had more machines and factories. You know, the things that make weapons. And more people with education, you know, people that design, make and and operate weapons.
Yeah, exactly, like the weapons produced by the USSR and the British Empire that, you know, are more than those produced by Germany's oh so cool non-peasant types?
Weapons produced with imported raw materials from the US and other countries.

Anyway, that only shows that UK and USSR made a greater use of their industrial resources. For example, Germany's industry operated mostly in a single shift basis, while UK and Soviet industry operated mostly in a 2 or 3 shift basis. The fact that UK+USSR produced 200,000 combat aircraft while Germany made half of that number doesn't prove that UK and the USSR controlled greater resources.

Also, I suspect that Germany's production of shells were greater than the combined total of UK and USSR. Though I do not have the especific data. Also, the production of explosives probably was greater for Germany than the combined production of USSR+UK.
Those German peasant types that obviously didn't exist in Germany since they didn't really depend on primitive agricultural methods and small peasant farms extolled as virtuous by that Hitler guy? :roll: Yeah, all those perfectly literate German's that weren't peasants that quoted Goethe and Schiller to each other as they shoveled shit on the farm...must have been a relief when they had enough POWs and other forced labor to do the job so they could get their farm philosophy clubs going again. :roll:
The point is that Western Europe had a much smaller proportion of the population without education than India, the country that contained 75% of the population of the British empire. Even thought that population under German control was smaller than the population under British control, the human resources under German control were certainly greater.
Since people confuse material resources with natural resources, which are a small part of "material resources".
Who "people" are those? As far as I can see from your lame response the only "people" remaining confused is you. Try again with someone that might still believe your horseshit obfuscations. :roll:
Actually, I was beign obfuscated because when people say that the British empire controlled more resources in 1942 than Germany, I think that they mean population and natural resources, since this statement only makes sense that way.
No. Human resources includes the human capital of the population. Germany controlled the population that produced 67% of the nobel prizes in physics, chemistry and medicine between 1918 and 1938. Germany itself produced 30% of these nobel prizes, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc, produced the other 37%. The US produced 12% of these prizes. USSR didn't produce anybody.
Uh-huh. Einstein? Hertz? Franck? Stern? I guess Stark and Heisenburg made up for them in physics right? At least they did better with the chemists...and we all know how that work won the war for Germany now, don't we? :roll:
I gave a more detailed picture of that in the post above. Germany certainly didn't lose the war because the Allies had better planes, tanks and guns, but because the Allies had more lives to throw away and more hands to work in the factories.

Anyway, without the US the Allies couldn't win the war. Even Stalin has acknowledged that.
People usually don't understand that in the 1940's, the most important part of the world was western europe, and Germany controlled the bulk of it (3/4 of western europe GDP).
There's those "people" again that keep misunderstanding poor old G. :roll:
They do not misuderstand my, they misunderstand the period in question. I am only pointing out the obvious!
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10273
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by ljadw » 17 Oct 2010 18:42

Why should pre-war Germany (with East-Prussia) belong to that mythical Western Europe ?

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Jon G. » 17 Oct 2010 19:02

Guaporense wrote:...
Jon G. wrote:...
But I can understand your desire to warp the discussion. After all, your point about Germany having more material resources (or is that 'human resources'? or 'industrial commodities' or whatever other fuzzy definition is your flavour of the moment) has been full and well falsified upthread. Facile observations don't change that.
Falsified? Where?

I didn't see any counter argument to the points I have raised. Only the showing of biases.
Then you haven't been paying attention.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &p=1515929
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &p=1514870
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &p=1516639
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &p=1515106
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &p=1515099
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &p=1515091

There's more. This is what a hasty search brought up.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10273
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by ljadw » 17 Oct 2010 19:05

One always should be suspicious of the figures,coming from our distinguished member from Brazil(sarcasm 8-) ),who wrote:Germany itself produced 30 % of these Nobel Prices(1919-1939)
From 1919-1939,75 persons recieved the Nobelprices for medecine,chemistry and physics,of which 18 Germans(=24 %) :P
They were :
1919 :Stark
1920:Nernst
1921:Einstein
1922:Meyerhoff
1925:Franck,Hertz,Zsigmondy
1927:Wieland
1928:Windaus
1930:Fischer
1931:Bergius,Bosch,Warburg
1932:Heisenberg
1935:Spemann
1938:Kuhn
1939:Butenandt,Domagk
Iam almost certain that I made the same observation some time agowhen Guaporense was making the same mistake .

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Jon G. » 17 Oct 2010 19:15

Not Guaporense, which must have been a case of the exception that proves the rule:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1501702

...but otherwise 100% correct.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Hanny » 17 Oct 2010 22:12

Guaporense, dont they have history books in your country?, and your clearly mis using the ones your posting from btw, you use Harrison and then contradict his content.
http://search.mywebsearch.com/mywebsear ... D%3D&ct=AR
Table 1-3.Wartime GDP of the great powers, 1939-45, in international
dollars and 1990 prices (billions)
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econo ... ew1998.pdf

and again here
http://search.mywebsearch.com/mywebsear ... 8veI&ct=AR



Nazism caused a brain drain.

Nobel prize winners swept into USA pre war, 12 of the Physicis noble prize winners did so, all being Jewish.http://www.hebrewhistory.info/factpaper ... cs.htm#ch1


http://www.hebrewhistory.info/factpaper ... biomed.htm
Europe's Loss; America's Gain
The impressive record of 19 Jewish winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and 37 Jewish winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics is further enhanced by the addition of no less that 44 Jewish winners of the Nobel Prize in the Biomedical Sciences.

AH forbade 3 German winners from recieving the Nobel award, one German winner was instead sent into Russia as an infantyman.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

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

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by LWD » 18 Oct 2010 15:21

Guaporense wrote: ...
I never claimed that Japan had greater shipbuilding capacity than the US.
What you did claim was that Japan had greater resources in some areas than the US did.
My point was that while the USSR produced more tanks than Germany, it only meant that in this very restricted class of equipment their production was greater. Like the fact that Japan made more battleships over 60,000 tons than the US (which is true, but tell us nothing about the countries relative industrial potential). The fact that the USSR produced more tanks than Germany also doesn't tell us about the relative industrial potential, only that the USSR focused a greater proportion of their resources into the production of tanks.
But that's not the case you were trying to make when you brought this up. And of course the US could have built such ships. They even had plans for them and had ordered them but cancelled before construction started. So it's completely misleading to say that in this area the Japanese had greater resources than the US. Care to try again?

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

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Guaporense » 26 Jul 2012 03:11

LWD wrote:So it's completely misleading to say that in this area the Japanese had greater resources than the US. Care to try again?
So, it's completely misleading to say that the USSR had greater material resources than Germany by using statistics on tank production. That was my point. Just as it is completely misleading to say that Japan had greater material resources than the US if you use statistics on the production of warships over 60,000 tons.

Especially when you simply ignore the massive discrepancy in quality between German and Soviet equipment: German tanks were fewer in number but they were apparently much more durable in the front: Soviet tank losses were 4-5 times higher than German losses.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10273
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by ljadw » 26 Jul 2012 11:02

IMHO,it is also misleading to compare Soviet and German tanks by quoting tank loss figures :as every one knows (or should know),only a small % of the Soviet tanks fell a victim to the German tanks;better would be to say that comparatively ,more Soviet tanks were lost to German anti tank weapons.
But,intelligent readers 8-) will justly observe that this also is wrong,because,on both sides,the biggest tank "killer" were non combat causes,as:mechanical defects,shortage of fuel,ammunition .
May I also observe that tanks were NOT made to be durable and that tanks do not operate in a vacuum :without proper support from infantry and artillery and good logistics ,a T 34 is helpless against a Pz II.

paspartoo
Member
Posts: 835
Joined: 07 Feb 2009 13:35

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by paspartoo » 26 Jul 2012 15:22

Only tanks count? What about tracked infantry carriers (sdkfz 250 and 251)? Or specialized recon vehicles? Not very sexy are they? Yet after the war the Soviets made sure their infantry no longer had to ‘ride’ on tanks…
A simple economist with an unhealthy interest in military and intelligence history.....
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/

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

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by LWD » 26 Jul 2012 16:55

Guaporense wrote:
LWD wrote:So it's completely misleading to say that in this area the Japanese had greater resources than the US. Care to try again?
So, it's completely misleading to say that the USSR had greater material resources than Germany by using statistics on tank production. That was my point. Just as it is completely misleading to say that Japan had greater material resources than the US if you use statistics on the production of warships over 60,000 tons.
If that was your point then you chose a very poor analogy. No one else built warships over 60,000 tons. A more reasonable analogy would be to pick a class, such as say battleships. Of course that choice doesn't support your position does it? Certainly using just tank production as a indicator of production capability is somewhat flawed but when combined with a number of other such indicators it can prove quite useful.
Especially when you simply ignore the massive discrepancy in quality between German and Soviet equipment: German tanks were fewer in number but they were apparently much more durable in the front: Soviet tank losses were 4-5 times higher than German losses.
But it's not at all clear how much of the relative losses were due to production quality and how much the strategic and tactical position, crew and organization quality etc. Indeed I'd like to see what numbers you are using to get the ratios you mention.

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

Re: German vs. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Guaporense » 26 Jul 2012 22:13

Instead of trying to count production of heterogeneous things such as "airplanes", "rifles" and "tanks", considering the vast qualitative disparity between German and Soviet manufactured items (obvious when one compares a Lada with a BMW) one should instead try to measure the munitions available to both armies by their value. Even ammunition have different levels of quality: each 120 mm shell is not equal to all others. Even the steel and the explosives vary in quality. In the end, quantitative comparisons of individual munitions items produces a highly distorted view.

So how we could determine the value of munitions? Well, the ultimate function of weapons is to inflict casualties on the enemy (gains in territory occur when the enemy forces are either destroyed or retreat due to superior enemy casualty infliction capabilities in proportion to the forces engaged).

Using a conventional Cobb-Douglas casualty production function, where the volume of casualties is determined by the equation:

Enemy casualties = A x M^{z} x P^{1-z} (1)

Which can be interpreted as the equation determining the output of the military sector of the economy given by the number of casualties it inflicts on the enemy.

Where:

A = fighting power parameter (total factor productivity of the armed force, i.e. efficiency)
M = munitions
P = personnel

z = parameter between 0 and 1 that yields the relative importance between munitions and personnel, in civilian sectors, human resources are usually around 60% while capital (i.e. munitions in the military sector) are 40%. However, workers have human capital, which is not taken into account here (we abstract human capital away from personnel and allocate it to parameter A). So I would give 50% / 50% of the relative contribution of personnel and material capital (munitions) to the output of an armed force. That's it, I give z a value of 0.5, that's the only assumption I make in this post.

Note that if we double both M and P we will double our casualty infliction capability. That makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, an army twice the size with twice everything should inflict twice the casualties. One thing that I don't consider in this model would be the size of the enemy forces, that's it, the density of enemies along the front. If there are few men to man the frontlines, artillery barrages, for instance, would tend to produce fewer casualties than if manpower is plenty.

Anyway, my objective is to determine M(german)/M(soviets)given that we know P, A and the number of casualties. These are the statistics for Germany and the USSR on force strength and the number of casualties:

German force strength:

2,500,000 - March 1942
2,550,000 - May 1942
2,600,000 - June 1942
2,600,000 - July 1942
2,500,000 - August 1942
2,490,000 - October 1942

Average: 2,540,000

German casualties:

1,080,950

Soviet force strength:

1st quarter 1942 - 4,186,000
2nd quarter 1942 - 5,060,300
3rd quarter 1942 - 5,664,600
4th quarter 1942 - 6,343,600

Average: 5,313,600

That means that Germany had 47.8% of the personnel strength of the Soviet Union in the Eastern front in 1942.

Soviet casualties:

7,369,278

However, Soviet casualties include besides killed, wounded and missing also sick and frostbitten, while German casualty figures don't. I don't have 1942 sick and frostbitten numbers, but during the whole war they were 12.4% of all Soviet losses. So cutting down 12.4% of the Soviet numbers we reach:

6,455,488 casualties.

That means that Germany inflicted 597% of the casualties using 47.8% of the personnel. The main reason was that Germany was much richer and hence could afford to invest a greater amount of physical capital on their soldiers.

Now, what would be a reasonable estimate of the discrepancy between German and Soviet fighting power? If you assume, for instance, that Germany had 50% of the material resources invested in the eastern front that the Soviet Union had, they also had 47.8% of the personnel, so we would have by applying equation (1) to both armed forces that A(german)/A(soviet) would be a very, very high number:

Soviet casualties / German casualties = A(German) x 2.54^{1/2} x M(German)^{1/2} / A(Soviet) x 5.314^{1/2} x M(Soviet)^{1/2}

-->

Soviet casualties / German casualties = A(German)/ A(Soviet) x 2.54 / 5.314^{1/2} x M(German)/M(Soviet)^{1/2}

--->

6,455,488 / 1,080,950 = A(German)/ A(Soviet) x 0.478^{1/2} x 1/2^{1/2}

Each German soldier would have 1,221% of the casualty infliction capability of the Soviet soldier. They would have been almost an army of supermen.

If you assume in 1942 (like some people do) that each Soviet soldier had 50% more equipment than each German soldier, that would mean that the Soviets would have 3.14 times more munitions in total. Which would imply that the Germans would be able to magically increase the casualty infliction capability of their human and material resources by a factor of 1,531% relative to Soviet levels.

However, if we are more reasonable, let's say, use an A of around 250%, which means that the German army was significantly more efficient than the Soviet army but not that much more efficient to the point where each German soldier would be supermen (the 250% was the difference in efficiency between the German and the Western Allies, forces which had a much more similar level of per capita endowment of physical capital). This would mean by applying equation (1) that M(german)/M(soviet) would be 11,93. Yep, this model concludes, assuming that the Germans had about 250% of the level of casualty infliction efficiency of the Soviets, that the German army had about 12 times more munitions than the Soviets in 1942, and each German soldier would have 25 times more munitions than the Soviet equivalent. Of course, measured in terms of value derived from combat efficiency and not in terms of physical quantities. That shows the massive qualitative difference between the two forces.

Anyway, the Eastern front was a war between an industrialized country and a developing country. Such as the Vietnam War, and in both cases one force had 10 times or more the casualty infliction capability per soldier of the other. In both cases the discrepancy in combat power was caused by the difference in the state of economic and social development of the two countries: a first world country and a third world country.

The fact that German forces were better equipped than Soviet forces is obvious to one that understands basic world history: Western Europe was always much more advanced than Eastern Europe, since the 14th century with the Italian renascence. And today the GDP per capita of Germany is 4-5 times that of Russia (in terms of market rates, not Maddison's PPP masturbation), in 1938, the ratio was about the same, while the modern GDP of the areas that were under German control in 1942 were about 10 times the GDP of the areas under Soviet control in 1942.

Sources:
http://pt.scribd.com/doc/59330786/Stati ... ir-Own-Los
Zetterling, Normandy 1944
Last edited by Guaporense on 26 Jul 2012 22:42, 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. Soviet production in 1942

Post by Guaporense » 26 Jul 2012 22:26

In terms of economic development, such was the relative states of economic development among the 7 great powers of WW2:

Developed:
- Germany
- USA
- UK
- France

Developing:
- Italy

Underdeveloped:
- Soviet Union
- Japan

Note that Soviet and Japanese forces suffered several times casualties when fighting German and American forces, respectively. That's because developed countries invest more munitions per soldier than developing countries. Also, developed countries have more resources to invest in training, leadership and military doctrine. Hence, soldiers in developed countries have more firepower, ammunition, better training and better leadership than soldiers in developing countries.

Italian forces had terrible performance in WW2, they were worse than Soviet and Japanese forces. That's not because Italy was less industrialized than Japan and the Soviet Union but because Italy was less mobilized for war: they didn't build up their industrial base to produce munitions nor they mobilized a high fraction of their GDP for war (in 1942, Italy mobilized about 20% of their GDP, Japan, by contrast, mobilized 70% by 1943). Overall, though, Italy was significantly more developed than either the USSR and Japan.
"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. Soviet production in 1942

Post by LWD » 26 Jul 2012 22:27

From what I've read Soviet losses due to frostbite were higher in 41 and 42 than they were in later years. That's of little import however as you have a couple of very serious confounding factors that make your effort of little value.
1) Training differences.
2) Doctrinal differences.
3) Strategic factors
4) Operational factors
5) Tactical factors
Not to mention things like usage rates, lend lease, espionage, etc.

Return to “Economy”