USA impact on World War II/ response to debate started on Amerika bomber post

[Konigs]

posted August 18, 2006 03:55 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Konigs,

EVEN with all those troops gone, the UK could have easily prevented Sealion.

Naval superiority, that alone could have killed a Sealion.

BUT, they also had equal air units and were actually producing MORE than Germany. So no air superiority and no naval superiority, no Sealion.

As well, Germany did not have amphibious technology, they did not even use amphibious units for Norway because of not having the ability to do so. Remember it took the allies over 3 years to develop functional amphibious technology.

The war was lost even without USA. USSR itself was outproducing tank, airfleets, artillery in 1940! They were also outproducing 4 to 1 in terms of OIL.

People can try and spin it anyway they wish, but bottom line is Germany was being outproduced and had manpower issues as early as 1940.

Have a look at these numbers on the link bellow, then ask anyone to try and explain how Germany could have won versus those overwhelming numbers AND don`t forget Russia ALONE was outproducing 4 to 1 in oil while Germany was short in 1940.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm

[ August 18, 2006, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

First thanks for the new site Blashy, really nice, Liam your repsonse was well though out and also appreciated.

Now lets look at some actual facts, let's start with a definition of total war. Using wikipedia(again thanks to some of you guys who have used this site, very nice. This will describe why the Germans were being out prduced in equipment in the '40-42'

"The United Kingdom

Before the onset of the Second World War, the United Kingdom drew on its First World War experience to prepare legislation that would allow immediate mobilization of the economy for war, should future hostilities break out.

Rationing of most goods and services was introduced, not only for consumers but also for manufacturers. This meant that factories manufacturing products that were irrelevant to the war effort had more appropriate tasks imposed. All artificial light was subject to legal Blackouts.

Not only were men and women conscripted into the armed forces from the beginning of the war (something which had not happened until the middle of World War I), but women were also conscripted as Land Girls to aid farmers and the Bevin Boys were conscripted to work down the coal mines.

Huge casualties were expected in bombing raids, so children were evacuated from London and other cities en masse to the countryside for compulsory billeting in households. In the long term this was one of the most profound and longer lasting social consequences of the whole war for Britain. This is because it mixed up children with the adults of other classes. Not only did the middle and upper classes become familiar with the urban squalor suffered by working class children from the slums, but the children got a chance to see animals and the countryside for the first time and experience how the other half lived. Many went back to the cities with their social horizons broadened.

The use of statistical analysis, by a branch of science which has become known as Operational Research to influence military tactics was a departure from anything previously attempted. It was a very powerful tool but it further dehumanised war particularly when it suggested strategies which were counter intuitive. Examples where statistical analysis directly influenced tactics was the work done by Patrick Blackett's team on the optimum size and speed of convoys and the introduction of bomber streams by the RAF to counter the night fighter defences of the Kammhuber Line.

[edit]

Germany

In contrast Germany started the war under the concept of Blitzkrieg. It did not accept that it was in a total war until Joseph Goebbels' Sportpalast speech of 18 February 1943. For example, women were not conscripted into the armed forces.

The commitment to the doctrine of the short war was a continuing handicap for the Germans; neither plans nor state of mind were adjusted to the idea of a long war until it was too late to help win the war. Germany's armament minister Albert Speer, who assumed office in early 1942, rationalized German war production and eliminated the worst inefficiencies. Under his direction a threefold increase in armament production occurred and did not reach its peak until late 1944. To do this during the damage caused by the growing strategic Allied bomber offensive, is an indication of the degree of industrial under-mobilization in the earlier years. It was because the German economy through most of the war was substantially undermobilized that it was resilient under air attack. Civilian consumption was high during the early years of the war and inventories both in industry and in consumers' possession were high. These helped cushion the economy from the effects of bombing. Plant and machinery were plentiful and incompletely used, thus it was comparatively easy to substitute unused or partly used machinery for that which was destroyed. Foreign labour (much of it slave labour) was used to augment German industrial labour which was under pressure by conscription into the Wehrmacht (Armed Forces).

[edit]

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union was a command economy which already had an economic and legal system allowing the economy and society to be redirected into fighting a total war. The transportation of factories and whole labour forces east of the Urals as the Germans advanced across the USSR in 1941 was an impressive feat of planning. Only those factories which were useful for war production were moved due to the total war commitment of the Soviet government.

During the battle of Stalingrad, newly-built T-34 tanks were driven - unpainted due to a paint shortage - from the factory floor straight to the front. This came to symbolise the USSR's commitment to the Great Patriotic War and demonstrated the government's total war policy.

To encourage the Russian people to work harder, the communist government encouraged the people's love of the Motherland and even allowed the reopening of Russian Orthodox Churches as it was thought this would help the war effort.

The ruthless movement of national groupings like the Volga German and later the Crimean Tatars (who Stalin thought might be sympathetic to the Germans) was a development of the conventional scorched earth policy. This was a more extreme form of internment, implemented by both the UK government (for Axis aliens and British Nazi sympathisers), and the US government (for Japanese internment in the United States)."wikipedia under total war.

Germany was still not trying to out produce any one in the early years, because Hitler worried too much about public turning on him.

Now lets look at the claim of Russia out producing Germany in oil 4 to 1 as well as some other interesting items. Mainly coal and iron, two key ingredients for running a war economy.

"Materials

[edit]

Coal

In millions of metric tons

Germany = 2,420.3

United States = 2,149.7

United Kingdom = 1,441.2

Soviet Union = 590.8

Japan = 184.5

Canada = 101.9

Italy = 16.9

Hungary = 6.6

Romania = 1.6

[edit]

Iron Ore

In millions of metric tons

United States = 396.9

Germany = 240.7

United Kingdom = 119.3

Soviet Union = 71.3

Japan = 21.0

Hungary = 14.1

Romania = 10.8

Italy = 4.4

Canada = 3.6

[edit]

Crude Oil

In millions of metric tonnes

United States = 833.2

Soviet Union = 110.6

United Kingdom = 90.8

Germany = 33.4 (including 23.4 synthetic)

Romania = 25.0

Canada = 8.4

Japan = 5.2

Hungary = 3.2 " wikipedia, ww2, production.

Looks like oil was about two to one, not 4 to 1.

Soviet iron ore and caol was a serious issue. Lets read further to see where it came from, oh yeah this will lead to lend lease. But first lets look at GDP to see the true size of the economies of Europe during the early years.

GDP - Gross domestic product

This chart shows the relationship in GDP between the Allied and the Axis during 1938-1945.This table shows the relationships in GDP (Gross domestic product) between a selection of Allied and Axis countries, from 1938 to 1945, counted in billion international dollars and 1990 prices.

Country 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945

Austria 24 27 27 29 27 28 29 12

France[1] 186 199 164 130 116 110 93 101

Germany 351 384 387 412 417 426 437 310

Italy[2] 141 151 147 144 145 137 117 92

Japan[3] 169 184 192 196 197 194 189 144

Soviet Union[4] 359 366 417 359 274 305 362 343

UK 284 287 316 344 353 361 346 331

USA[5] 800 869 943 1 094 1 235 1 399 1 499 1 474

Allied Total:[6] 1 629 1 600 1 331 1 596 1 862 2 065 2 363 2 341

Axis Total:[7] 685 746 845 911 902 895 826 466

Allied/Axis GDP:[8] 2.38 2.15 1.58 1.75 2.06 2.31 2.86 5.02

Notes on the table (remember that the distribution values are rough estimates):

↑ France-Axis distribution: 1940: 56%, 1941-43: 100%, 1944: 58%.

↑ Italy distribution: 1938-1943: 100% Axis, 1944-1945: 100% Allies

↑ Japanese values are included in Axis totals for all years in order to illustrate potential contribution

↑ Soviet Union-Allies distribution: 1939: Only 67% due to the pact with Germany, but none to Axis. During 1940 Soviet Union is not counted at all. 1941: 44% is distributed to the Allies (after Operation Barbarossa), 1942-1945: 100%.

↑ US values are included in Allied totals for all years in order to illustrate potential contribution & Lend-Lease

↑ The Allied total is not the immediate sum of the table values; see the distribution rules used above.

↑ The Axis total is not the immediate sum of the table values; see the distribution rules used above.

↑ Allied/Axis GDP: This row shows the relation in GDP between the Allies and the Axis; i.e. 2.00 means the Allied production was 2 times larger than the Axis. Please note that only a selection of countries are included in the table. The distribution of values into alliances is described in the previous notes.

Table data source: Harrison, Mark, "The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison", Cambridge University Press (1998). WIkipedia, ww2, production.

For a better look at the above chart go to here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Materials

Notice that the alled total before USA entrnace. British and Soviets outnumbered the German, Austrian and Italian economy barely, then you add in the French and they were bigger. Remeber, the German ecnomoy was not in total war until 43. They could have easily outproduced the Allies form '40 to '42.

Now back to USA. Their GDP was twice that of the rest of all the allies. WOnder where it all went. Let's take a look at the Lend Lease program. Very interesting subject, but let's concentrate on the USSR lean lease.

Aircraft.............................14,795

Tanks.................................7,056

Jeeps................................51,503

Trucks..............................375,883

Motorcycles..........................35,170

Tractors..............................8,071

Guns..................................8,218

Machine guns........................131,633

Explosives..........................345,735 tons

Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000

Railroad freight cars................11,155

Locomotives...........................1,981

Cargo ships..............................90

Submarine hunters.......................105

Torpedo boats...........................197

Ship engines..........................7,784

Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons

Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000

Non-ferrous metals..................802,000 tons

Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons

Chemicals...........................842,000 tons

Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons

Leather..............................49,860 tons

Tires.............................3,786,000

Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

I do not know about any body else, but hese are staggering numbers. Look at the 1981 locomotives and the 11000= freight cars, read the next statement on the impact of this.

"For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. US supplies of waterproof telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical." wikipedia, lend lease.

I wonder how many less weapons would have been produced with out coal and iron porvided by USA, or if they had to buil their own locomotives, rail cars and turcks.

Wonder how powerful tanks and artillery would have ever made it to the fornt line if no locomotives, or rail cars, also, no trucks to keep the forward units supplied. Also interesting point about the soviet airforce totally reliant on the high octane fuel of the USA. Kinda refutes the earlier post about 4 to 1 oil theory.

Interesting numbers, old saying is "numbers do not lie, only staticians."

Now going back to the sea lion argument. It is a well known fac to anyone who has read extensively about world war II. The RAF were on their knees when they Luftwaffe was actually attacking the right targets. They were attacking the southern airfields, radar towers and the factories that produced the planes or their critical components. Another month at most and they were in dire straights.

Out of desperation the British launched the raid on Berlin. Everyone knows the Herman Maier story as it related to Goring. The British got exacly wht they needed and wanted, Hitler mad and wanting to destroy urban cities with no military value, which made the stubborn Bulldogs dig in and fight fight fight, the rest is history.

I will not even talk of manpower, see British use of females, germans late in doing this to, see the whole Mother's cross idea for this story and reasoning. Oh, yeah let;s not forget the Battle of the bulge after they were supposedly finished on resreves of all types.

I love the debate, show me some figures, I hope this does not detract form the long awaited 1.3 SC2.

Bottom line, USA economic might played an extremely large part in the Allied success.

[ August 19, 2006, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Konigs ]

[Scook]

Bottom line, I believe the USA is under-represented in MPPs and ground units in SC and SC2. Thank Hubert Cater for the Editor.

[xwormwood]

Numbers are not everything as history has teached us (because Leadership, moral, fighting spirit, tactic and strategic knowledge / doctrine, surprise elements, good or wrong descisions etc. can't be put in numbers).

[Panzeh]

Had the French defended themselves more logically, I do not think the US would be needed.

However, wargames do not like the French and thus they have to die every game.

[Liam]

Not bad, it's estimating what is built true, many figures. Though let us understand something at the outbreak of war, the Germans were geared up for War enough to beat everyone they fought until 1942. Why? They had the Tactics, the weapons, the training, the leadership, the right sort of Military Warmongering Ambitious Ideology. They were short on resources, both ManPower and Raw Materials after a certian time period. Well, when you fight a lot of wars and you're not a Massive Nation like the USSR or USA you will run dry faster you better fight to gain more resources and stabilize your Nation or have enough punch to knock out the West in a few blows.

France fell, England was an Island, the USSR didn't fall. The USSR didn't fall because she had enough space to give up and then regroup and then fight back. We all know this.. Germany should not have attacked the USSR! It was gamble and even Hitler knew it.. He couldn't afford, the USA entering shows me that Hitler was blinded by his victories and an incompetent leader doomed to fail.

Even if Germany had not made the Major errors she made, the War would've very very tough for her. Unlike SC, realistically she would've likely taken France, they were not prepared for this type of war.....but she would of likely been outproduced no matter how many Minors she sacked, and no matter how much she geared her nation for war. the USA and USSR alone are what during that time period 300 million combined? draw on that Manpower. The Germans merely conquored nations she had to garrison.. she was too ambitious

She needed to win the war in 1941 before Winter, something she couldn't do, Moscow wasn't enough, she couldn't move fast enough, a race against time, and it was over

[SeaMonkey]

War! War! War!....Fight! Fight! Fight!

Whatever happened to diplomacy? Now we all surely love a good wargame, but let us not remember that the winner usually knows when to fight and when not to.

So if we prosecute SC2 to its fullest "what if" extent, shouldn't diplomacy be just as good as combat at getting what you want?

To be the winner.

[Blashy]

Liam says it best.

As for diplomacy, even if Germany had every minor on the on their side via diplomacy they still would have been outproduced and been short of manpower.

[xwormwood]

@Blashy: depends on what you would call minor.

If Poland, the Benelux, CSSR, Denmark and Norway would have allianced with germany, i wonder if the UK would have had any reason to fight in a franco-german war, followed by a struggle against the USSR.

Not that this outcome is at least a bit near of an historical option, but -

anyway: outproducing is not everything.

[SeaMonkey]

Sure Blashy, your right, in the end picture, USA and USSR would have eventually overcome Festung Europe.

But what a battle!

And your also right, with Hitler at the controls, Germany was doomed, no argument here.

But.......isn't there always a "but(t)", with an application of traditional Prussian principles of conquest, using armed conflict and a proper sprinkling of diplomacy, it could have survived........ie the EU.

Is there really any doubt......what if?

[Konigs]

Blashy go look at the numbers, GDP for Axis was greater than British and Russian, again, back breaker was lend lease and USA direct involvement.

Axis, particulalry Germany never geared up for total war, see above mention definition of total war, until '43.

Liam, very nice explanation, truthful and can be backed up by facts.

I guess the nearly unlimited what ifs of WW2 is what intrigues so many of us 60+ years after it was all decided.

[Iron Ranger]

In the long term this was one of the most profound and longer lasting social consequences of the whole war for Britain. This is because it mixed up children with the adults of other classes.

Wow, great post that that alone is a eye opener.

[TaoJah]

The question I always ask is this : what if Hitler would have stopped in France, Norway and eastern Europe ? If he never bombed the UK or attacked the USSR ?

Do you think that the UK would have attacked ? The USSR ? The US ? I'd say no, no and certainly not. Then, Hitler would "have won".

Of course, another question is, would Hitler stay in power if he would stop expanding The Reich ? That is another question.

[Blashy]

All of that would simply have delayed war.

Everyone would have kept building up forces because the Nazy party was about expanding.

And their lying about every invasion to the world since day one (czech, rhine, etc...) no one would have beleived them.

They simply were not interested in "peace".

[Retributar]

Originally Quoted by Blashy !.

They simply were not interested in "peace".

Sound's like the same crowd who want "ISLAMIC JIHAD!!!"

[Blashy]

True, one is religious the other was more ethic (master race crap).

Always have extremists in everything.

[Barcelona 1936]

Konigs IMHO has done a very good post.

Germany wasn´t an economy at war until Speer took economic command and Total war was declared.

But the political reasons were important in this choose of Hitler , he needed germans didn´t feel the war over their backs; no increased taxes, no women in factories, goods as tires or gas for middle class were too political prizes for silent any disident voices.

[Konigs]

Thanks, Barelona '36, numbers show equality until USA industry truely turned the scales, Russia low on iron and coal, would have had hard time producing weapons, esp if the built their own trains and tucks, plus they had no fuel for their planes.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Konigs:

Thanks, Barelona '36, numbers show equality until USA industry truely turned the scales, Russia low on iron and coal, would have had hard time producing weapons, esp if the built their own trains and tucks, plus they had no fuel for their planes.

In 1940 UK and USSR were already outproducing Germany in tanks and airplanes.

[Konigs]

Blashy, youe are like a hawk dude, please look closely at my post, Axis had potential to outproduce, no total war in Germany until '43. Alled total war in '40, GDP for Axis was also larger.

[Cary]

Originally posted by Blashy:

All of that would simply have delayed war.

Everyone would have kept building up forces because the Nazy party was about expanding.

And their lying about every invasion to the world since day one (czech, rhine, etc...) no one would have beleived them.

They simply were not interested in "peace".

Of course this raises the "what if" of the coup against Hitler. It'd be a pretty different world now if in 1944 Stauffenberg had been a suicide bomber, or if Hitler had been closer to Stauffenberg's bomb when it went off. It'd be even more different if the German military had done the smart thing and deposed Hitler in April 1940 or May 1941 -- the former being the "nearer run thing."

[Blashy]

Those are WAY to big of what if to even consider what would have occured after that.

But no matter what happened, if Germany had continued the war, they were going to loose no matter what.

Russia, USA AND even UK were all outproducing it.

Their best hope was NOT going to war, hehe.

[Konigs]

Bump for Rambo, thought you might want to check out some numbers on what the USA did to supply their allies, and how awesome in numbers it was.

[Guest Mike]

Konig wrote:

Now going back to the sea lion argument. It is a well known fac to anyone who has read extensively about world war II. The RAF were on their knees when they Luftwaffe was actually attacking the right targets. They were attacking the southern airfields, radar towers and the factories that produced the planes or their critical components. Another month at most and they were in dire straights.

Out of desperation the British launched the raid on Berlin. Everyone knows the Herman Maier story as it related to Goring. The British got exacly wht they needed and wanted, Hitler mad and wanting to destroy urban cities with no military value, which made the stubborn Bulldogs dig in and fight fight fight, the rest is history.

that's not the history I know.

the Luftwaffe never came close to knocking hte RAF out. Raids on a/c factories had little or no effect, and at the height of the BoB the UK was producing twice as many Spitfires and Hurricanes as Germany was producing Me-109's (450/month vs 220) - and those were the only a/c that mattered.

No UK airfield was ever put out of action for longer than 24 hours, there were no gaps in radar coverage longer than 24 hours (the UK had mobile radar to cover KO'ed fixed stations!).

The RAF was worried when they got down to 1.5 pilots per Spitfire/Hurricane, but the LW never had MORE than 1.1 pilots per 109.

The RAF never had less than 600 spitfires and hurricanes serviceable, and never less than 100 in reserve at any time. By mid September the LW had barely 280 serviceable 109's.

Of course this is all with 20/20 hindsight (and a paper I did on the subject 15 years ago) - the British had no way of knowing the weakness of the LW, and were quite prepared to withdraw fighter command to behind London.

Had they done so it is my opinion that Germany might well have launched an ill-prepared Sealion, and lost 250-500,000 men in it - because the RAF was NOT knocked out and the RN would ahve massacred teh invasion fleet.

the political consequences of such a loss are almost incalculable - it would have been the flower of pre-war German infantry.........

[jon_j_rambo]

Thanks Konigs for giving me the ***bump***. Those numbers are incredible, all the stuff given to Russia. Not only the goods, but we had to deliver across the globe!

Everybody knows Germany was overated. Who did they defeat? Nobody. Poland was a bunch of sleeping farmers. Denmark were Nazis already, just drive a jeep with one soldier & then would be converted. LC helped fill the SS murderer ranks. The French have no heart. No only that, the Vichey joined the Nazis. Complete losers then, and today. Italy were Nazis. Half of Yugo. Then you have Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary all pro-Nazi. Norway, well, they couldn't beat up the lady in the Sound of Music. Just shuttle some buntas in a boat & they folded. Sweden was pro-Nazi. The Swiss were pro-Nazi.

So who did Germany defeat?

Certainly not the British. Herman Goering's LF got stopped cold. Notice how nobody ever wants to talk about him? It's always Manstein & Rommel. Well, what did Rommel do? Lost in Africa. What the heck were the Germans doing in a desert? You really think they'd walk across to the Suez? Give me a break. Stupid prideful Germans.

Gerry had some initial success in Russia. But were did their so-called master race Generals get them? All dead at Stalingrad.

Bottom line, Germans are good at overruning sleeping farmers & recruiting more killers within Europe. They thought it was fun to beat up little old ladies & burn people's shops. The Buntas should be thankful Russia didn't stuff them in ovens in 1945.

"You know what we should do? Blow up ever bridge, building, and road. Give them a couple of buffalo, and let them start all over like us." --- Charles Bronson in Battle of the Bulge.

Europe

[Scook]

AH and the Nationalist Socialist Party gives us good discussions like this and a basis for a game we seem to really like.