German economic collapse in 1944-45

[histan]

Hi Guaporense

Sorry but you can not take two data points, assume some kind of linear relationship and then extrapolate way beyond the values of the data points you have and then draw conclusions.

You can not say that the total loss of industrial man-hours to bombing was 0.5 % in 1943 based on two data points from 1944.

You are allowed to say - If I make a set of assumptions (and then list them) that you estimate that the loss of industrial man-hours was of the order of 0.5%

By the way, the bombing survey data are estimates and I have yet to see any "uncertainty bars" placed on these estimates. I haven't read the USSBS report in detail so I can't comment on their methodology or there estimates in detail.

Regards

John

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

Mr. Histan Stated:

Hi Guaporense

Sorry but you can not take two data points, assume some kind of linear relationship and then extrapolate way beyond the values of the data points you have and then draw conclusions.

Actually, Mr. Histan, in Science and Engineering, in both fields of which I have significant professional experience, this is done all the time. And, very profitably, too !


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward


Geisler's Laws of Data Collection:

If you want repeatable data, take your measurements only once.

If you want a straight line data fit, only take two data points.

[Yoozername]

Geisler's Laws of Data Collection:

If you want repeatable data, take your measurements only once.

If you want a straight line data fit, only take two data points.

I would assume this is said as a joke. I assume you mean Bob Geisler? Here he quotes a very informed person Dr. Jerry Smith....

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/data-ass ... c-cisa-pmp

[Rob Stuart]

Hi Guaporense

Sorry but you can not take two data points, assume some kind of linear relationship and then extrapolate way beyond the values of the data points you have and then draw conclusions.

You can not say that the total loss of industrial man-hours to bombing was 0.5 % in 1943 based on two data points from 1944.

Absolutely correct, especially when one of the two data points, May 1944, is unrepresentative of the whole period! In that month the strategic bombing force was employed in pre-invasion bombing of France and Belgium, and German industrial targets were hit only when the weather over France and Belgium was bad.

[Yoozername]

As a test engineer that has written test procedures, you would need a nominal 3 points to test for actual linearity. Two points might imply linearity, and a fool might actually believe it, but real technical people know better. I actually had 10 test points as a final production acceptance test for a linear power supply. The actual voltage points tested were when the digital numbers 'rolled-over', that is, for example when 011111111111 became 100000000000. So, it was not just 0,1, 2...10 volts. It was the voltage that corresponded to the 'roll-overs'.

Anyway, what is this thread about again? Oh yeah, German economic collapse. I once read that if they just concentrated on the German electric grid, they could have crippled many industries.

[stg 44]

Anyway, what is this thread about again? Oh yeah, German economic collapse. I once read that if they just concentrated on the German electric grid, they could have crippled many industries.

That was the conclusion of the USSBS analyzing the effectiveness of strategic bombing; apparently Speer asked his interviewers why they hadn't tried to bomb the electrical grid, because they could have shut down German production by the end of 1943.

[Tomg44]

Look here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise

[Stiltzkin]

Anyway, what is this thread about again? Oh yeah, German economic collapse. I once read that if they just concentrated on the German electric grid, they could have crippled many industries.

It is apparently about something that transcendences peoples imagination, especially the ones who wield a Voltmeter and pretend to know somthing about economy.

[Yoozername]

Anyway, what is this thread about again? Oh yeah, German economic collapse. I once read that if they just concentrated on the German electric grid, they could have crippled many industries.

It is apparently about something that transcendences peoples imagination, especially the ones who wield a Voltmeter and pretend to know somthing about economy.

Speer had a voltmeter? Fascinating! I personally own my own calibration equipment.

stilt·ed
ˈstiltəd/
adjective
1.
(of a manner of talking or writing) stiff and self-conscious or unnatural.

[Yoozername]

Look here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise

I suppose the US could have used AZON in a similar manner to attack the power stations in Germany...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azon

[Guaporense]

Hi Guaporense

Sorry but you can not take two data points, assume some kind of linear relationship and then extrapolate way beyond the values of the data points you have and then draw conclusions.

You can not say that the total loss of industrial man-hours to bombing was 0.5 % in 1943 based on two data points from 1944.

You are allowed to say - If I make a set of assumptions (and then list them) that you estimate that the loss of industrial man-hours was of the order of 0.5%

Of course. It's a very crude way of estimating it: I assumed the effect of hours lost was linear and used the two data points to get an average for the linear effect.

However, if either you assume the "returns on bombing" are increasing or decreasing instead of linear will not change these estimates very much:

It's pretty obvious that if 100,000 tons of bombs were dropped monthly the decrease was 2.8% and if 135,000 dropped monthly implied in a decrease of 3.9%, then, 17,000 tons of bombs dropped monthly like in 1943 would affect aggregate hours worked in industry by a very small amount, certainly lower than 1% and the 3,000-4,000 tons of bombs dropped monthly in the years of 1941-1942 had insignificant impact on industrial activity.

By the way, the bombing survey data are estimates and I have yet to see any "uncertainty bars" placed on these estimates. I haven't read the USSBS report in detail so I can't comment on their methodology or there estimates in detail.

These are not USSBS estimates. These are German figures reported by the USSBS and are not estimates but actual reported losses of hours worked from planned work times averaged from a set of about 10,000 factories all over Germany.

[Guaporense]

Anyway, what is this thread about again? Oh yeah, German economic collapse. I once read that if they just concentrated on the German electric grid, they could have crippled many industries.

It is apparently about something that transcendences peoples imagination, especially the ones who wield a Voltmeter and pretend to know somthing about economy.

Like the 1943 bombing of the ball bearing industry crippled many industries. (sarcasm)

The simple historical fact was that dropping bombs randomly from 10,000 meters in the air was a generally very ineffective way to spend munitions: the degree of precision was almost zero and so the effectiveness was very low: 1 ton of munitions spent on things like artillery or mortars, could do enormously more damage to the enemy armed forces than munitions released randomly from bombers 10,000 meters up in the air dropped over enemy controlled territory (often at night!). The historical fact was that based on memories of millions of battle casualties in WW1, WAllies were just too scared to go into the frontlines and fight the Wehrmacht directly (like the Red Army was doing or like they did in WW1) so they tried another approach: send planes to release bombs from 10,000 meters high in the air and hope they hit something important.

Guess what? It didn't work.

It's true the WAllies managed to suffer way less battle deaths that way: 120,000 bomber crew were sacrificed in dropping bombs bombing vis. the 6 million Red Army soldiers who died in battle or from wounds. However, the cost of that approach was simple strategic ineffectiveness. As it proved itself ineffective in affecting the German logistical supply train, at least up to the end of the 2nd half of 1944, when the war was already won by a wide margin.

Instead, if the WAllies focused their resources on the ground army, I think they could have made a much bigger impact. The UK was allocating 40% of their total war budget into the strategic air war: if they shifted all those resources into the ground army, they could have a much larger ground forces and so could have liberated continental Europe much earlier than historically. In WW1: the UK fielded 100 divisions in continental Europe and produced 220 million artillery shells, in WW2, the UK's population and GDP was slightly larger, yet, they only fielded 35 divisions and produced 75 million artillery, AA and tank shells. If the WAllies had gone through the ground force focus instead of strategic bombing and opened up a massive ground front earlier, the USSR might not even had the time to occupy so much of Eastern Europe as they did historically. True, casualties for the WAllies would have been higher, but that's the price to be paid for being relevant contributor to strategic victory.

Hence, it was a severe strategic mistake on the WAllies part to allocate so many resources to a futile terrorist bombing campaign. Perhaps their gravest mistake in the war. It's essentially a product of the trauma of WW1 and was used again in wars also failed: the US bombed Vietnam much more heavily than Germany was bombed in WW2, and lost that war.

[Michael Kenny]

The historical fact was that based on memories of millions of battle casualties in WW1, WAllies were just too scared to go into the frontlines and fight the Wehrmacht directly (like the Red Army was doing or like they did in WW1)

So France, Greece, North Africa. Italy and NWE were not 'fighting the Wehrmacht directly'?

so they tried another approach: send planes to release bombs from 10,000 meters high in the air and hope they hit something important.

Guess what? It didn't work.

Given the thread title is 'German Economic Collapse in 1944-45' I can confidently say you are wrong. It worked big time. It also kept 11,000 88mm-105mm guns and some 2 millions souls out of the ground army


The one thing that stands out here is your total and absolute ignorance of the weapons and tactics of WW2.

[Rob Stuart]

[...] The historical fact was that based on memories of millions of battle casualties in WW1, WAllies were just too scared to go into the frontlines and fight the Wehrmacht directly (like the Red Army was doing or like they did in WW1) so they tried another approach: send planes to release bombs from 10,000 meters high in the air and hope they hit something important.

[...] If the WAllies had gone through the ground force focus instead of strategic bombing and opened up a massive ground front earlier, the USSR might not even had the time to occupy so much of Eastern Europe as they did historically. True, casualties for the WAllies would have been higher, but that's the price to be paid for being relevant contributor to strategic victory.

Hence, it was a severe strategic mistake on the WAllies part to allocate so many resources to a futile terrorist bombing campaign. Perhaps their gravest mistake in the war.

This simplistic and superficial conclusion overlooks that the original Allied plan did aim to win the war through a massive advance on the ground, once sufficient forces were available, with any strategic air offensive being in support of, and not a substitute for, the armies' advance. Unfortunately, this plan was scuppered when the French were knocked out of the war. After June 1940, the British knew they could not on their own raise an army large enough to re-enter the continent and defeat the German Army. They did not know that Russia would become an ally a year later, nor that it would be able to hold off the Germans, nor that the US would become an active ally at the end of 1941. Given their strategic situation and exaggerated expectations regarding the effectiveness of an air war (it was less effective than they expected but more effective than you will admit), opting to pursue victory through strategic bomber was entirely logical. In the meantime they fought the Axis on the ground in North Africa. The US, on the other hand, had the population and resources to raise huge air forces and a big army. The Anglo-Americans were not "too scared to go into the frontlines and fight the Wehrmacht directly", but no matter how big your army is you cannot launch an amphibious attack on a continent without all the required resources and prerequisites.

[Yoozername]

And the US was involved in a two-front war. And developed different strategic bombing aircraft for the fronts. The US was conducting amphib invasions on two fronts also. I really don't get what the OP thinks should have happened? Fight like the Soviets?????