Production Technology

[arado234]

Liam even though the U.S.werenot "officially"at war they were helping england,and would have continued to do so at an ever increasing rate.You are right in that hitler pulled one of his bigger bonehead moves by actually declaring war on america.

[Guest Mike]

I'm not sure it mattered much - all the expansion that produced the vast number of weapons was actually started in late 1940 and in 1941 before war was declared - the "Arsenal of Democracy" speech was December 1940, and see Willow Run for the story of an aircraft plant - the first soil was turned early in 1941, but the first a/c wasn't produced until October 1942 and IIRC "real" production didn't commence until a month or 2 into 1943.

so the US was well and truly tooling up by Pearl Harbour. Arguably had they a year against the Japs alone they might have actually performed better in Europe than they did at times early in hte piece - getting combat experience & refining their own equipment.

[Liam]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_WW2

During the War the Germans produced of 94,000 aircraft, fairly staggering considering their shortages and every scrapped plan due to their favoritism and awful political climate for really mass producing the right weapons. Many great Axis Aircraft would never see combat... not that they never had able prototypes or even a small amount of functional ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

and nearly 50,000 tanks produced...

They were an industrious little power, I think Manpower more than anything would have harmed them and the fact they were constantly fighting the Russians... It may not have been men and materials they were short on but perhaps more oil, experienced men and time to put it all to practical use..

I do think a majority of what the Germans built were fielded, but I'm not sure of all the figures drawn up on the American equipment, what portion of it was ever used or permanently shelved. As we all know #s really don't count when they rust! Had those 300,000 American Aircraft had seen combat perhaps WW2 would have been more a Turkey Shoot... not that it wasn't after 1944......the only thing the Axis had was Tanks from then on and foul weather

[Guest Mike]

IMO their production is actually abysmal considering they had the whole of Europe's resources

[Liam]

Stalinist's, they're several reasons...

1. European Resources outside of Russia, Scandanavia and Romania weren't that high.

2. Their production would've been doubly abysmal without all of Europe which was so easily handed to them.

3. Germans believe in Superior quality over quantity, in a lot of situations their units were 4 to 1 superiority in Quality.

4. In the end their was a shortage of German men to operate this equipment... Worse than the shortage of Equipment, much like Japan a lack of able trained manpower. Poor training techniques.

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

IMO their production is actually abysmal considering they had the whole of Europe's resources

[Iron Ranger]

In 1 you should include France, and perhaps Spain The ore Franco shiped to Germany was of high quality.

[Guest Mike]

Yes I know there's lots of reasons why they didn't do as well as they could have - politicial ideaology being foremost.

However Europe's "lack of resources" is not one of them. Don't mistake the rsources in the game for what was there "inreal life" - the game is abstracted and deals solely with the obvious military aspects.

Europe had major industrial capacity....the industrial resources of Europe helped considerably - aircraft were built in France for example, Aircraft and Tanks in Czechoslovakia......the French and Czech's both had considerable numbers of German a/c in service for several years after eth war - teh Czechs operated Me-262's for 5 or 6 years, and teh last French Ju-52 didnt' leave service until the 1960's IIRC. The 75mm gun in hte French AMX-13 (and Israeli Super Sherman) is a development of the Panther gun.

Millions of slave labourers meant Germany had more people in industry than the Soviet Union.

World wide production of most major resources in 1937 is at http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/resources.html

the Axis was short of some things - tin, oil, molybdenum, sulphur and others, but it had plenty of most basics.

[jon_j_rambo]

I read about a Tidal Wave in the news that killed 300,000 people in seconds. What's your guns against that?

[Guest Mike]

I don't have any guns.

anyone else's in the way would be wet.

did you have something useful to say as well?

[Retributar]

TOO LATE TO POST!... But, great Summarization and information on the 'Real'-'Reality' of WW2 by both Liam & Stalin's Organist!.

[Guest Mike]

For interests sake I took the totals from teh link above for Germany and it's allies and conquests, and such neutrals as it could possibly trade with (Turkey, Spain, Sweden, Portugal) and tabulated thm....hopefully it'll be readable - figures are % of world production in 1937:

........... Germany....Neut...total

Coal...... 23......0.37...23.37

Oil..............2.8.....0.......2.8

Iron Ore........17.6....10......27.6

Copper Ore.......4.......1.......5

Lead Ore........12.8.....2.9....15.7

Tin Ore..........0.1.....0.......0.1

Zinc Ore........22.18....3.6....25.78

Nickel Ore.......1.7.....0.......1.7

Bauxite.........54.5.....0......54.5

Mang Ore.........9.7.....0.1.....9.8

Tung Ore.........0.......6.6.....6.6

Chrome Ore.......8.2....16......24.2

Moly.............0.......0.......0

Sulphur..........0.......0.1.....0.1

Pyr.............27.4.....1.6....29

Phos.............0.7.....0.......0.7

Potash..........78.......0......78

Mag.............38.9.....0.1....39

Rubber...........0.......0.......0

Wheat...........23.4.....5.8....29.2

Rice.............0.8.....1.3.....2.1

Maize...........15.1.....3.8....18.9

Cane Sugar.......0.......0.......0

Beet Sugar......42.4.....4.8....47.2

Meat............25.8.....0.9....26.7

[ September 19, 2007, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Iron Ranger]

It would in an interesting test to see when if ever its best to disband a unit vs reinforce it.

Rebuilt units are at 60% cost (Including tech) + X % from Production Tech.

Reinfocing cost full amount, including the premium for tech

So a Corps (100MMP) at L3 IW and L2 AT is 140MMP base.

At str 5 its going to cost 70 MPPS to reinforce it.

Disband it and rebuild it will cost. X 'bonus' + 84 MPPs for 0 PT; 69 if tech L5 (I think)

Since your getting some MMPS back for the disbanding, and the rebuild cost is less then the reinforcing your only down side is TIME; Loss of Exp (basicly its gone anyway); and Moral (actaully a rebuild units starts at 50/50 vs the low value after reinfocring this unit)

I'm not going to work up a total list of value, I'm sure Terif or someone else has. But if you can afford to lose that unit from the map for a few turns (one in the winter); its cost effective to disband and rebuild then reinforce at high PT. Then again my math could be like Reaganonimacs.... nothing more then a pile of BS!

[Konigs]

Interesting subeject Iron Ranger. I guess the only real drawback would be loosing a frontline unit, then maybe having to operate it back into battle. Thus operating would be an added cost and lower morale. If your forces were deep enough may not make a difference to loose a forntline unit. Yes very interesting indeed. I may try it in one of the three PL mirrors I am playing at the moment.

[Terif]

@Iron Ranger:

Sorry, doesn´t work - disbanded units have to be built at 100% cost, not 60% .

Only if a unit gets destroyed in combat with supply >=5 you can buy it back at reduced costs (which btw is still more expensive than just reinforcing it).

[Iron Ranger]

Yet, my bad. Reinforcing is at 50% of new cost, dont remember reading that anywhere.

[Juergen2SSDR]

I remember reading that Russia recieved alot of resources through Iraq. Rail system. UK won the fight in Iraq and started to assist with the lend lease via rail through Iraq, not sure on quantity though.

[Guest Mike]

Roughly 50% of lend lease by weight went through Vladivostock on Soviet flagged ships from the US West Coast. Roughly 25% went to Murmansk and 25% through Iran.

See http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html

[Juergen2SSDR]

Yikes.. I got Iraq mixed up with Iran.

thanks Stalin's Organist for the % figures.

Would have been interesting if the Germans and Finns saw eye to eye, and actually took Leningrad, which then could have led to the taking of Murmansk, and the Japanese Vladivostock

Ok the Japanese taking Vladivostock is really stretching it... :0

[arado234]

VeronicaJGD thats what the axis powers should have done.Attack russia from all angles possible(leave the U.S.A.out of it as long as possible) and maybe they(with the help of japan)could have defeated russia.I know its a stretch but anything was better than what they did.

[rleete]

Originally posted by VeronicaJGD:

Yikes.. I got Iraq mixed up with Iran.

That's okay. Cheney did, too.

[Retributar]

"Don't Be Sorry!!!,...Just Don't Do It Again!"

Sound's-Good, Doesn't it???.

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Ok, contrary to popular belief, Production Tech does reduce the cost of reinforcement , slightly, as I have just experimented. I did a hot-seat game and reinforced a British airfleet (no techs) from 4 to full strength, and it cost 90 MPPs. When done on the equivilent German air-fleet it cost only 85 MPPs to reinforce from 4 to full strength, again no techs. However, when I upgraded them both to level 1 AA, the british air fleet cost 99 whilst the German airfleet cost 94. This suggests that Production Tech reduces the reinforcement cost of the basic unit but not any upgrades. I'll do a few bigger experiments with the editor to get to the bottom of this

[ October 01, 2007, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Col. Gen. Guderian ]

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Yep, just checked it. Each level of production tech reduces reinforcement of the basic unit excluding upgrades by 5%.

For example, if you were to reinforce a tank group from 1 to full strength, with no upgrades but with level 2 production tech, you'll save 10% on it (cost=101 MPPs instead of a nominal 112). However if the unit is level 5 heavy tanks and level 2 motorization and it is reinforced to full, it makes no difference. You'll only save 10% on the cost of the unit before upgrades (cost=168 MPPs instead of a nominal 180), i.e. a saving of 11-12 MPPs both times despite the costly upgrades in the second instance. Had production tech included the cost of upgrade reinforcement, there would have been a saving of 18 MPPs on the upgraded tank group instead of 12.

I don't know yet however if the same applies to units that have been bought back at 60% the cost.

It says in the manual though "reinforcement costs for damaged units are based on the current cost of the unit."

Production tech seems not to affect the actual upgrading of units that are already built either.

It doesn't seem to make any of this stuff clear in the manual, but page 19 is the place to look with reference to this.

P.S. Of ever so slight note, the game rounds down instead of up for each 0.5 of an MPP.

[Konigs]

Very nice work Herr Guderian, thank you for these efforts and sharing of Knowledge...