German economic collapse in 1944-45

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
Post Reply
User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#46

Post by Guaporense » 04 Apr 2017, 07:54

Stiltzkin wrote:1. The only thing I see is people not trying to debunk his claims or conduct a mature discussion, instead they rely on argumentum ad hominem attacks.
Well, the ignore user function is for this. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that such persons who "debate" like this have no interest in actual history.
2. If you really read his post, you should have notized that he never stated such a thing, you seem to have misinterpreted or exchanged "bayonet charging infantry" vs "field army/larger focus on ground forces".
Indeed. In the period 1942-44 period small arms ammunition were only 3.2% of German ammunition expenditure by projectile weight while mortars, artillery and anti-tank and tank ammunition were 96.4% combined.

Those internet historum forums people have no idea of how firepower was distributed in WW2.

Aircraft were usually only 3-5% of firepower according to Dupuy's estimates for 60 engagements in Italy in 43-44. While out of the 95-97% of ground firepower, in Germany's case they were distributed by projectile weight as follows:

Rocket artillery -------------------- 5.6%
Railroad artillery ------------------ 0.5%
Heavy artillery -------------------- 6.7%
Field guns ------------------------- 62.0%
Tank and anti-tank guns --------- 5.2%
Infantry guns --------------------- 9.7%
Mortars ---------------------------- 6.8%
Light arms ------------------------ 3.2%

An "infantry division" was much more than just soldiers with rifles, it involved all sorts of weapons and small arms such as rifles, machine guns and pistols were only 3.2% of the total weight of ammunition fired. Modern industrialized warfare, which matured in WW1 was mainly based on artillery and mortars and riflemen's function were essentially dedicated to occupying the frontlines and they had to dig trenches to protect themselves from artillery which was the source of the vast majority of casualties and the bulk of the expenditures of ammunition. That was true for WW1 and WW2: the basic nature of modern industrialized warfare did not change.

While on the internet people think that tanks, aircraft and rifles were all there was in terms of weapons for WW2 and they think that WW1 were just hordes of riflemen: the historical fact was these 3 sources combined constituted less than 10% of total firepower in both wars and people cannot really understand the nature of industrialized warfare that was based on area effect artillery, mortar and other explosive weapons. That's why infantry dug trenches dummy!
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#47

Post by Stiltzkin » 04 Apr 2017, 09:26

This should be the welcoming sign of the AHF.


Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#48

Post by Michael Kenny » 04 Apr 2017, 14:59

Guaporense wrote:
An "infantry division" was much more than just soldiers with rifles, it involved all sorts of weapons and small arms such as rifles, machine guns and pistols were only 3.2% of the total weight of ammunition fired. Modern industrialized warfare, which matured in WW1 was mainly based on artillery and mortars and riflemen's function were essentially dedicated to occupying the frontlines and they had to dig trenches to protect themselves from artillery which was the source of the vast majority of casualties and the bulk of the expenditures of ammunition. That was true for WW1 and WW2: the basic nature of modern industrialized warfare did not change.
Infantry are the key to all actions. However they are also the most vulnerable. Artillery and bullets came to dominate the WW1 battlefield to the extent than infantry lost the ability to attack without incurring losses that would in effect destroy them. A solution was found . It was called the tank. A weapon specifically designed to negate the power of the bullet and the shell. Indeed so acute was the problem even ill-informed posters could see it:
Guaporense wrote: riflemen's function were essentially dedicated to occupying the frontlines and they had to dig trenches to protect themselves from artillery which was the source of the vast majority of casualties and the bulk of the expenditures of ammunition..................the nature of industrialized warfare that was based on area effect artillery, mortar and other explosive weapons. That's why infantry dug trenches dummy!
Thus tanks were an answer to the overwhelming power of the MG and Artillery. A tank completely negated the MG and an artillery barrage and restored movement on the battlefield. Tanks were a success.


The problem then became how do you deal with a tank? The solution specific anti-tank artillery and specialised tanks that would destroy other tanks. Tanks performed many duties but by far the largest task for Allied tanks in WW2 was infantry support. HE ammo expenditure for tanks was far greater than AP usuage. The last time I used it:

viewtopic.php?p=2051341#p2051341



Indeed by wars end Allied Infantry Divisions had Tank Units attached to them full-time. So much so that at times some Allied infantry Divisions had more tanks than the German Panzer Unit they were engaging,
Tanks were critical weapons and any attempt to down-pay their role is wilful ignorance. In a pursuit the tanks were critical. They came into their own and could range far and wide laying waste to the enemies supply lines.
I suspect the grossly ill-informed poster realises this. That is why he has wandered off trying to teach everyone to suck eggs. Information on AFV artillery usuage (AP v HE) has been mentioned many times over the last decade and I am confident the ill-informed poster got that revelation from here. Tanks are only meant to fight tanks in order that they can defeat the enemy tanks and then proceed to use their artillery (that is what a tank gun is, artillery) in relative safety.
Marcelo was not always so dismissive of 'tanks' His blinkered attempts to prove the fighting in the East was the most important German front was 'referenced' by him claiming 'most' of the panzers were in the East. It was a great shock to him when he was shown the evidence there were more panzers in the West than in the East in the summer of 1944. Indeed so distressing was this exposure of his ignorance that he decided that in future 'tanks' were not important (as more were in the West then as the West was unimportant then tanks must also be unimportant) and he would in future downplay their contribution to in WW2. Much like his absolute refusal to use the German MIA/POW totals in his bogus charts because the East numbers are way lower than the West numbers.

The claims that all opposition is driven by ignorance is a hangover from his trying out these argument on second and third tier forums and dealing with replies from posters who are are ill-informed as him. It won't work here and the only support he will get is from those trying to re-fight old battles from a previous incarnation.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6347
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#49

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Apr 2017, 18:14

Stiltzkin wrote:1. The only thing I see is people not trying to debunk his claims or conduct a mature discussion, instead they rely on argumentum ad hominem attacks.
No, what you see is people debunking his "claims" with the actual facts over and over again going on for eight years now. For which his "mature discussion" response is to simply ignore the actual data and repeat the falsified information ad nauseum.

That is not argumentum ad hominem of any sort. Instead, it is an attempt to counter a serial purveyor of argumentum ad ignorantiam. That methodology is that of Goebbels Propaganda Ministry, Donald Trump, Stormfront, and tabloids, and should have no place here in what purports to be a "research forum". That it is tinged in no little way by extreme frustration by the respondents shouldn't be wondered at, especially given the misplaced adulation he receives from other posters for his deceptive rants.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#50

Post by Yoozername » 04 Apr 2017, 18:16

That's why infantry dug trenches dummy!
I believe they also dug trenches to protect themselves from machinegun/rifle fire, getting run over by tanks, and aircraft attacks. Multipurpose excavations, you see.

I am fascinated by your preoccupation with weights. I suppose that it must be impressive to you somehow, it expresses 'firepower'? You can have about 3 light 81mm mortar rounds, or about 250 rounds of 30 cal MG ammunition for the same weight. Both are really 'infantry' weapons, or battalion weapons. 3 mortar rounds doesn't really do much unless you have something registered already. It would not keep a mortar firing at its full rate more than about 10 seconds. The MG ammunition should last about 2 minutes. They are both effective in defense, and have suppressive effects in offense. They have very different needs as far as infrastructure, supply and training, etc. There are more 'weights' that need to be accounted for though. Artillery uses many men and also fuel and shipping to feed the guns. In most cases, all the effort is defeated by a simple shovel. Artillery, that is non-SP, is very vulnerable to air attack and other measures (counter-battery). It has very little value when the ammunition stops coming.

Looking at just raw weights is a logistical approach. While it may may seem to belittle small arms, it is actually saying that small arms needs are very effective as far as holding ground and paying the cost of hauling weight. And that is what Germany was trying to do in Italy. And the allied air force, in Italy, was cutting off the Germans logistics, and what could get though with each truck was vital. One could categorize much of German combat post Kursk as being defensive in nature. Whether they liked it or not. Basically, the Germans would have to rely on the infantry to hold ground. And it behooved them to make sure that they were supplied.

To say that the OP has a twisted outlook on all this is being, well, generous. I think he needs to give some credit to the Germans as far as losing the war through very bad decisions. Not just because he thinks Roosevelt was giving monies to the Soviets. The bottom line is that the soldiers doing the fighting are well aware when the enemy is paying a higher cost than they are. The Western Allies could not, and would not, pay the price that the Soviets expected of their troops in WWII. It took the Soviets a few years to build up the military to a colossal powerhouse in all terms, numbers, ammunition, etc. They had been invaded and were looking for the final revenge.

The German had fixed their wagon, and there could be no peace terms.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#51

Post by Guaporense » 04 Apr 2017, 18:54

Excuse me, but you appeared to think infantry meant riflemen only. Apparently you knew that there was more to it, so why do that?

I already explained: the Western Allies should have focused their resources on ground forces to have a decently sized army and invaded Europe earlier than they did. Instead of wasting massive resources on strategic bombing which killed 360,000 civilians and 120,000 bomber crews for no significant strategic benefit (because lowering German industrial production by 3% in 44 was not significant), they could have used these resources better. That way the war would be over earlier and the USSR wouldn't have occupied half of Europe.

It's that hard to understand?
The Western Allies could not, and would not, pay the price that the Soviets expected of their troops in WWII.
Then don't pretend it's a war. Because dropping explosives on civilians strategically was the same as not doing anything. Practically it amounted to war crimes. A war is fought by soldiers on the front. If you don't want to lose soldiers then you don't fight: it's how war works.

WW2 was a war between Germany and Russia. The other countries didn't do anything substantial on strategic terms. German strategy was rational given their objectives but it didn't take into account the will to resist of the Soviet people. The Western allies shoot themselves on the foot by being scared of losing troops and focusing their resources on dropping explosives on civilians instead of actually fighting. It's was just a way do pretend to do something without sacrificing many soldiers. And 120,000 soldiers were a huge sacrifice.

The number of soldiers who died in the Western front was about 200,000. Opening it a year earlier might have caused an extra 100,000 deaths (and saving the lives of 120,000 bomber crews) considering the war would have been over sooner than historically and that Germany's army was busy in the Eastern front, the Western Allied losses wouldn't​ be at Soviet levels: the Germans had about 45 divisions in 1943 in the Western front, fighting that number of divisions would result in about 11,000 deaths per month only.

So, overall, the Western Allies could have lost FEWER soldiers by focusing on land forces and invading Europe earlier instead of doing terrorist bombing and the war would have been over sooner and hundreds of thousands of civilians would have been saved.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6347
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#52

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Apr 2017, 19:24

Guaporense wrote:Excuse me, but ... Instead of wasting massive resources on strategic bombing which killed 360,000 civilians and 120,000 bomber crews for no significant strategic benefit (because lowering German industrial production by 3% in 44 was not significant), ...
Excuse me, but why do you repost falsified information as if it is fact? "120,000 bomber crews" were NOT killed in operations against Germany. The strategic effect on Germany WAS significant.

It is dishonest of you to continually repeat false information. Some would call it lying.
It's that hard to understand?
Repeated posting of false information on a research forum, especially after being recently corrected, is dishonest. Is that hard for you to understand?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#53

Post by Yoozername » 04 Apr 2017, 19:31

OP: You really have no clue.

The targeting of the Nazis oil/fuel industries, and transportation systems, was perhaps the most successful air efforts of the war. In fact, it was Eisenhower's call since he was given control of the bomber targeting objectives at the time. The German oil fields (Romania), refineries, synthetic fuel plants can be called an Energy-Target. That is, concentrating on an industry strategically. The pre-D-Day bombing (France & transportation) was followed by this strategic bombing of the German vital fuel industry. Its effects on the German air effort allowed Allied air superiority. The rain of death that followed was felt by other industries. The Soviet occupation of the ruined Romanian oil facilities showed the success of these raids. The complete destruction of the German fuel industries was just stopped by the weather in the fall 44 and Eisenhower turned over control of the air efforts to Bomber Command.

The Allies had the fuel that the planes needed. The Germans did not. If the Germans had FULL oil/fuel production, they would have been training more air crews, fueling more armored vehicles, and continuing with the combined arms warfare that any sane person knows by that time was the state of warfare.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#54

Post by Michael Kenny » 04 Apr 2017, 19:34

Guaporense wrote:. Instead of wasting massive resources on strategic bombing which killed 360,000 civilians and 120,000 bomber crews for no significant strategic benefit (because lowering German industrial production by 3% in 44 was not significant), they could have used these resources better. That way the war would be over earlier and the USSR wouldn't have occupied half of Europe.

It's that hard to understand?
Here we can see the same ill-informed poster saying the exact opposite:
Guaporense wrote:. Allocate air power and guns to defend the Reich in the historical way: It was needed, since without protection the industrial production would have fallen more than it did................Also. Invest money in the development of the Me 262 jet fighter: Maybe by late 1943 it would enter mass production, reducing the damage to the German economy caused by bombing in 1944...........Germany would prevent then front achieving aerial superiority and bombing the economy to oblivion
viewtopic.php?p=1384095#p1384095


It is too be expected that he will contradict himself given that he has the conclusion he wants (Germans super-soldiers/Soviets beat them by numbers only/Western Allies did nothing) and he simply invents data to support his delusion.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#55

Post by Michael Kenny » 04 Apr 2017, 19:38

Yoozername wrote: continuing with the combined arms warfare that any sane person knows by that time was the state of warfare.
There is your error. You assume you are dealing with a rational person.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#56

Post by Yoozername » 04 Apr 2017, 19:46

Well, so many errors here...it might be a comedy of errors...

I will say this going back to Japan...I don't believe that the US Bombed Japan till sometime in 1944 (disregarding the Doolittle raid). Perhaps that could have been delayed and even more bombers sent to Berlin? Actually, I do not believe in bombing cities for the sake of it. But the cities with weapon industries and other vital targets had to be attacked. I can see where the OP will start calling out 'war-criminals', etc.
Last edited by Yoozername on 04 Apr 2017, 19:48, edited 1 time in total.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6347
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#57

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Apr 2017, 19:46

Guaporense wrote:Then don't pretend it's a war. Because dropping explosives on civilians strategically was the same as not doing anything. Practically it amounted to war crimes.
Not by any definition of "war crimes" in effect at the time it did not. So it "practically" amounted to a legitimate use of military power. All hand wringing by Nazi apologists and moral equivalency advocates aside.
A war is fought by soldiers on the front. If you don't want to lose soldiers then you don't fight: it's how war works.
It is rather obvious how little you actually comprehend of how war works. Modern total war, as in World War II, is fought on land, sea, and air, by soldiers, sailors, airmen, and civilians. Nineteen percent of the Wehrmacht were civilians at its peak. In the Flak arm, 348,000 of the 1,110,900 personnel manning it in the fall of 1944 were German civilians and another 98,000 were foreign "volunteers" and PoW illegally forced to work in defense of the Reich.
WW2 was a war between Germany and Russia.
If it was a war between only German and Russia, then Germany won. In reality, it was a war between the allied United Nations, principally the Soviet Union, United States, United Kingdom (and its Colonies and Dominions), and their alies versus the Tripartite Axis, principally Germany, Japan, and Italy, and their allies. Your reductio ab adsurdum exposes the paucity of your argument.
The other countries didn't do anything substantial on strategic terms. German strategy was rational given their objectives but it didn't take into account the will to resist of the Soviet people. The Western allies shoot themselves on the foot by being scared of losing troops and focusing their resources on dropping explosives on civilians instead of actually fighting. It's was just a way do pretend to do something without sacrificing many soldiers. And 120,000 soldiers were a huge sacrifice.
Especially a huge sacrifice since it only occurred in your imagination.
The number of soldiers who died in the Western front was about 200,000. Opening it a year earlier might have caused an extra 100,000 deaths (and saving the lives of 120,000 bomber crews) considering the war would have been over sooner than historically and that Germany's army was busy in the Eastern front, the Western Allied losses wouldn't​ be at Soviet levels: the Germans had about 45 divisions in 1943 in the Western front, fighting that number of divisions would result in about 11,000 deaths per month only.
Imaginary and falsified data points piled one upon another only equal a pile of imaginary and falsified data points...or a pile of manure, take your pick.
So, overall, the Western Allies could have lost FEWER soldiers by focusing on land forces and invading Europe earlier instead of doing terrorist bombing and the war would have been over sooner and hundreds of thousands of civilians would have been saved.
Except they would have fewer sailors so lesser capability to cross that big watery thing in the way to get their way more soldiers on the ground, which is the only "real war". And fewer airmen and planes and lesser attrition to the Luftwaffe and so more of them attacking the fewer ships transporting all the soldiers trying to fight the "real war".
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#58

Post by Guaporense » 04 Apr 2017, 19:48

Yoozername wrote:OP: You really have no clue.

The targeting of the Nazis oil/fuel industries, and transportation systems, was perhaps the most successful air efforts of the war. In fact, it was Eisenhower's call since he was given control of the bomber targeting objectives at the time. The German oil fields (Romania), refineries, synthetic fuel plants can be called an Energy-Target. That is, concentrating on an industry strategically. The pre-D-Day bombing (France & transportation) was followed by this strategic bombing of the German vital fuel industry. Its effects on the German air effort allowed Allied air superiority. The rain of death that followed was felt by other industries. The Soviet occupation of the ruined Romanian oil facilities showed the success of these raids. The complete destruction of the German fuel industries was just stopped by the weather in the fall 44 and Eisenhower turned over control of the air efforts to Bomber Command.
The "rain of death" decreased industrial production by 3%. Thats not significant. The decrease in fuel supply for the Luftwaffe affected on the 2.8% of German firepower that was from the air force, hence, it did not lower Allied casualties. Indeed, Soviet monthly casualties in 1945 were higher than in 1942. Strategic bombing failed to lower the German output of ammunition and hence failed to lower the fighting power of the Wehrmatch: in 1944, despite all the bombing, was the year the Wehrmatch ​fired the highest ammunition tonnage in the war.

So it's you that don't have a clue: suppose the Western Allies didn't do any strategic bombing. What would change?

Absolutely nothing: the Red Army speed of advance didn't increase after mid 1944. They would reach Berlin at the same time as historically and win the war. While 500,000 lives would be saved, including 120,000 bomber crews. A win win situation.
The Allies had the fuel that the planes needed. The Germans did not. If the Germans had FULL oil/fuel production, they would have been training more air crews, fueling more armored vehicles, and continuing with the combined arms warfare that any sane person knows by that time was the state of warfare.
Strategic bombing was not "combined arms warfare", that the Germans and Russians also did do. Strategic bombing was using planes to drop explosives on civilians indiscriminately from 10,000 meters in the air. That was just futile terrorism.

I never said the WAllies shouldn't have normal airforces. They were useful (although their effect was mostly psychological as planes were fragile aluminum machines at the time) as support for the ground forces.

It's not a heterodox opinion to regard strategic bombing as a brutal failure. It's the rational conclusion one reaches when analysing history: http://www.economist.com/news/books-and ... war-costly

Hence, those resources spend on bombing were wasted and could be better used elsewhere.
Last edited by Guaporense on 04 Apr 2017, 20:01, edited 1 time in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#59

Post by Yoozername » 04 Apr 2017, 19:58

I am suggesting that we are dealing with some form of thinking disorder, or at least a form of advanced reading miscomprehension.
Strategic bombing was not "combined arms warfare"
Who said it was? Are you ESL? No shame in it.
The decrease in fuel supply for the Luftwaffe affected on the 2.8% of German firepower that was from the air force.
Well, you are using your own falsehoods again. The Germans could not train or fly missions. I guess that is OK with you since they were not an effective provider of "firepower". And, therefore, they didn't need to fly or try and shoot down the bombers, since they were ineffective, right? Your arguments are perfectly specious.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: German economic collapse in 1944-45

#60

Post by Guaporense » 04 Apr 2017, 20:02

I see I shouldn't waste my time on someone who is not willing to think. It's brainwashed: "American airpower won WW2", "strategic bombing won the war", "anybody who questions Western Allied propaganda has mental disorders".
Last edited by Guaporense on 04 Apr 2017, 20:04, edited 1 time in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Post Reply

Return to “Economy”