The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1165
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 00:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Rob Stuart » 19 Sep 2016 15:32

Guaporense wrote:
Rob Stuart wrote:
Guaporense wrote:
Rob Stuart wrote:It was indeed as easy as it could have been.
Indeed, Soviet casualties were so light in that operation Uranus: 154,885 KIA and 330,892 WIA in 2.5 months. Super easy victory indeed. (sarcasm)
Do you have even one clue as to what the concept of "context" is? Did I not clearly say that I was not referring to the entire 1942 campaign or the entire Stalingrad battle? Did I not refer specifically to the period 19-22 November? The Russians cut through the Romanians like a hot knife through butter and the casualties you refer to were not inflicted by the Romanians or during the race to Kalach.
I don't have data on casualties there specifically but it's you who hold the burden of proof of showing them so that you could substantiate your claim they cut through then like hot knife on butter.

Data on Romanian casualties is neither here nor there in a discussion of whether or not the Russians went through the Romanians like a hot knife through butter. According to Antony Beevor’s Stalingrad, on 19 November the Russian forces attacking north of Stalingrad broke through the Romanian IV Corps front and then the II Corps front by around mid-day (thanks in large part to the Germans not having supplied enough anti-tank guns). By 1700 the Russian spearheads had advanced over 20 miles. So in the course of 12-14 hours the Russians blasted gapping holes through two corps and advanced more than 20 miles. This fully justified my description.

One of the formations behind the Romanian 3rd Army’s front was the German 22nd Panzer Division. According to Beevor, a well respected historian, this division had “little more than thirty servicable tanks and was so short of fuel that it needed to borrow the Romanians’ reserves.”. So much for the Germany army’s tank requirements being “satiated” and for the railway system and horses being able to keep forward units adequately supplied with fuel.

The other armoured formation in the area was the Romanian 1st Armoured Division, but it was equipped mostly with Czech R2 tanks – the Skoda LT-35 light tank, armed with a 37mm gun – so it could not do much to slow down the Russian advance.

The Romanian 4th Army, to the south of Stalingrad, had no armoured division of its own.

You say that “Resources were obviously not a binding constraint for production of tanks”. This is probably correct. It follows then that the Germans were idiots for not producing a lot more tanks than they did.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Stiltzkin » 19 Sep 2016 16:20

It was disguised.
I was talking about military outlays. Mobilization cannot be fully concealed, especially not in a democracy, this would cause massive upstir.
So much for the Germany army’s tank requirements being “satiated”
Stock and Operational readiness are two things (in 44 for example they have over 2000 tanks at the front and only 800 are operational, repairs + new sent will replenish the stock of about 29 Divisions of the Panzer arm). It is more a thing of repairs and logistics. Reinforcing your Panzer units under the conditions of the eastern front quickly enough, which have been mauled in battle just recently, is a difficult task (also in this situation they would have probably needed more AT guns). Here is a question: How did Army Group Center survive the blow, while being reinforced less during this period?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5002
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Richard Anderson » 19 Sep 2016 17:27

South wrote:Good morning Stiltzkin,

The US indeed had much mobilization prior to Pearl Harbor - and Poland.

It was disguised.
Sorry Bob, but no, I think you exaggerate.
FDR's "alphabet soup" Federal agencies were gearing up to go to war.

The Civilian Conservation Corps ("CCC") was a basic training program coupled with building barracks.
The CCC was formed in 1933, just seven weeks after Hitler became Chancellor and long before any serious worries of a new European war existed in FDR's mind.
A famous example is Pan Am's China Clipper service to China and New Zealand. It was a disguised mobilization program. The US Government funding was.....hidden.
Very well hidden. Pan Am contracted the Boeing 314 on 21 July 1936, over three years before the limited state of emergency was declared. What mobilization program did it disguise?
US Government budgets are opaque. What the public sees is "somewhat" different.
Not really. The contracting process was pretty open. As was the budgetary process. See for example, the 1st and 2nd Naval Acts of 1936 and 1938.
Atomic ordnance research was also going on.
Einstein and Szilard sent their letter to FDR in August 1939. FDR directed the formation of the Briggs Committee in October...and provided essentially zero funds to anything other than coffee and cigarettes for the committee meetings until 28 June 1941 when FDR authorized the OSRD and later NDRC. The actual Project was approved by FDR on 9 October 1941.
Glance at United Fruit Company budgets and transactions.......just joking.......not available. They were doing more than shipping bananas.
I have glanced at them. What were they shipping then that supports your claim?
Prior to Watergate, the American political "scandal", the lead scandal was "Teapot Dome". Teapot Dome was a Naval Petroleum Reserve, one of several. They were also involved in the preparations for war.
No, "Teapot Dome" was a bribery scandal wherein the Secretary of the Interior was paid off by oil companies to release the NPR to them so they could resell it. I'm not sure how depleting a strategic reserve for profit qualifies as "preparations for war"? Especially given it occurred in 1921.
Many other examples available. Each is a tile in a mosaic. The picture is as clear as white light passing through a prism.
Well if there are so many examples available, some of them must be better than these, which are not examples at all. I await your clear prismatic mosaic with great anticipation.

My best regards to you and the Tidewater.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5002
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Richard Anderson » 19 Sep 2016 17:48

Stiltzkin wrote:Stock and Operational readiness are two things (in 44 for example they have over 2000 tanks at the front and only 800 are operational, repairs + new sent will replenish the stock of about 29 Divisions of the Panzer arm).
29 Panzer divisions? As of January 1944 there were 33, requiring about 6,600 tanks. On 3 January 1944, the Feldheer had 1,671 operational and 1,633 in repair "at the front", with 523 allocated and in route "not at the front". So, 3,304 "at the front" and a total of 3,827, which means about one-quarter of the requirement were operational, another quarter were non-operational, about 8% were on the way, and the rest were pie in the sky. You know, fantasy, like the notion that missing in action and prisoners of war are not "casualties" because they surrender instead of bleeding.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

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

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Guaporense » 19 Sep 2016 18:48

Anyway, it's not like anybody here is interested in discussing the topic I am talking about (The economic puzzle). This is more of a topic only of interest for economists anyway.
Cult Icon wrote:In the Red Army, manpower and tanks were their "ammunition" supply. It was part of different offensive and economic concept.
If the Western Allies had more resources they could have afforded to give the Soviet army substantial amounts of tanks so that their losses wouldn't be that large. (in Rob Stuart mode) :roll:
Rob Stuart wrote:Data on Romanian casualties is neither here nor there in a discussion of whether or not the Russians went through the Romanians like a hot knife through butter. According to Antony Beevor’s Stalingrad, on 19 November the Russian forces attacking north of Stalingrad broke through the Romanian IV Corps front and then the II Corps front by around mid-day (thanks in large part to the Germans not having supplied enough anti-tank guns). By 1700 the Russian spearheads had advanced over 20 miles. So in the course of 12-14 hours the Russians blasted gapping holes through two corps and advanced more than 20 miles. This fully justified my description.
Well, the Germans advanced over the WAllies in the ardennes in december 44 by 80-90 kilometers in a week. That doesn't prove the WAllies were badly equipped with tanks.
You say that “Resources were obviously not a binding constraint for production of tanks”. This is probably correct. It follows then that the Germans were idiots for not producing a lot more tanks than they did.
No, because their output of tanks was more than enough to meet their needs. You know, as Stilzkin explained, there is a difference between number produced and operational readiness in an active front.
Last edited by Guaporense on 19 Sep 2016 19:05, edited 1 time in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5002
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Richard Anderson » 19 Sep 2016 19:03

Guaporense wrote:Anyway, it's not like anybody here is interested in discussing the topic I am talking about (The economic puzzle). This is more of a topic only of interest for economists anyway.
No, its not like anybody here is interested in doctored data and false conclusions.
If the Western Allies had more resources they could have afforded to give the Soviet army substantial amounts of tanks so that their losses wouldn't be that large. (in Rob Stuart mode) :roll:
The Americans supplied 37,323 tanks to its allies through Lend-lease. how many tanks did Germany supply its allies.
No, because their output of tanks was more than enough to meet their needs. You know, as Stilzkin explained, there is a difference between number produced and operational readiness in an active front.
No, that is not what "Stilzkin explained" at all. If production was only sufficient to provide 25% operational readiness then they either needed more reliable tanks or more production or both. You know, like the Allies did.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7437
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Sep 2016 19:23

No, because their output of tanks was more than enough to meet their needs. You know, as Stilzkin explained, there is a difference between number produced and operational readiness in an active front.
The thread just gets crazier and crazier. I presume this surfeit of panzers is why a only handful were sent as replacements to Normandy June-Aug and also why Panzer Division were being equipped with Stug instead of tanks.

1st SS-horz.jpg
10th SS-horz.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 3248
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Cult Icon » 19 Sep 2016 19:40

without the Axis allied (Hungarian, Rumanian, Italian) armies, the 4. Panzer and 6th Army could not attack Stalingrad in the first place. The flanks would have been nearly open space.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 3248
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Cult Icon » 19 Sep 2016 19:44

Guaporense wrote:Well, according to Zetterling (2000) German losses when they attacked the Americans in December 1944 were actually lower than American losses (all forces on average), even though they were in the offensive. Although the discrepancy in losses was much smaller than against the French in 1940.

Were German training standards for both officers and conscripts lowered in 1944-45 versus 1940-41?
Yes.

And that is hardly unusual, as good offensive operations result in a small percentage of losses for the attacker. According to Bergstorm's research, the 116.Pz, 2.Pz, and Panzer Lehr, and FBB inflicted a disproportionate amount of losses on the US forces. Other units were average, and others lost more than they gave.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1165
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 00:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Rob Stuart » 19 Sep 2016 19:56

Guaporense wrote: If the Western Allies had more resources they could have afforded to give the Soviet army substantial amounts of tanks so that their losses wouldn't be that large. (in Rob Stuart mode) :roll:
They did give the Soviets substantial numbers of tanks. The Canadians sent 1,390 Valentines to Russia and the UK sent another 2,394, for a total of 3,784. The Americans subsequently supplied 4,102 Shermans. In both cases the number supplied was greater than the number of tanks the Germans had for the start of Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, which was 3,332. In both cases the models supplied were the same ones currently used by the Commonwealth and US armies, and not captured castoffs.

John T
Member
Posts: 1193
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by John T » 19 Sep 2016 20:22

Guaporense wrote:
John T wrote: So the difference is about you are right and I'm wrong or how do you interpret the difference between "bigger economies" (like US compared to Germany in this case) to "more advanced economies"

I can't see the big difference in the two statements except that you claim you are right?
There is an enormous difference.
We discussed Germany and USA.
why does you start pulling in Belgum?
to avoid your errros?
Guaporense wrote:
John T wrote:
Guaporense wrote: Well, it shows how inefficient the production of tanks was: the cost of producing a tank was much, much, much higher than the cost of producing the same weight in terms of civilian cars. Even though the cost of producing a Sherman tank should have been lower than civilian cars on a per ton basis due to it's massive bulk.
IT SHOULD ??
AS you obviously do not know anything about production, why do you bother to write so much on this forum regarding maters you have not the slightest unerstanding of?
You could start to note the difference between how to press steel to make the body of a car with how you make the glacis o a tank.
So you would think that single detail would certainly imply that the cost of production per ton will always be higher for tanks?
One single detail that you have to manipulate parts 100 times as heavy, and multiple times as hard to cut than mild steel.

Guaporense wrote: (4) the good old factor of corruption is nearly always involved in government operations.
In Brazil for shure.

/John T

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1165
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 00:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Rob Stuart » 19 Sep 2016 20:35

Guaporense wrote:
Rob Stuart wrote:Data on Romanian casualties is neither here nor there in a discussion of whether or not the Russians went through the Romanians like a hot knife through butter. According to Antony Beevor’s Stalingrad, on 19 November the Russian forces attacking north of Stalingrad broke through the Romanian IV Corps front and then the II Corps front by around mid-day (thanks in large part to the Germans not having supplied enough anti-tank guns). By 1700 the Russian spearheads had advanced over 20 miles. So in the course of 12-14 hours the Russians blasted gapping holes through two corps and advanced more than 20 miles. This fully justified my description.
Well, the Germans advanced over the WAllies in the ardennes in december 44 by 80-90 kilometers in a week. That doesn't prove the WAllies were badly equipped with tanks.
Not a valid comparison. The Germans were able to advance that far in the Ardennes because the US front line was thinly manned and because there was no Allied armoured division in the right place to stop them. 22 Panzer Division was in the right place but had too few serviceable tanks. The Romanian 1st Armoured Division was also in the right place but had the wrong tanks. That (and many other examples, e.g., the Italian use of M13/41 tanks against Grants and Shermans) is what proves that the European Axis allies were badly equipped with tanks, and that was due to the Germans not making enough of them.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by South » 20 Sep 2016 08:35

Good morning Stiltzkin and Richard,

I also was talking about military outlays.

Again, they were disguised. FDR had Neutrality Act restrictions at least publicly until the Munich Agreement of 30 Sep 38.

I will not discuss budgets here. It is too complex......not the subject matter for AHF participants but typing the stuff with examples and basic principles eg transfer payments, the PANLIBHON program, fully owned US corporate foreign subsidiaries, partly-owned US corporate foreign subsidiaries, inter alia

Much also "happened" prior.

Look at the Panama Canal defenses. They extended well beyond the Canal and the lane approaches. For example, USN patrols extended 1,000 NM out.

I mentioned the Pan Am China Clipper service. The inaugural flight was November, 1935. Preparations obviously started well prior. The radio and weathel research and refinement was part of the mob efforts.

Richard; Must disagree. It's possible / probable we use a different philosophical approach. I say FDR DID anticipate a new European war. Can't discuss "serious worries" but the planning was going on.

In June, 1933 General MacArthur drew up mob plans based on 3 contingencies.

In his 28 Jan 1938 message to Congress FDR spoke of the "beginning of a vast program of rearmament". FDR did not wait 5 years without taking actions for war mob.

If you review the pre-FDR Naval Treaty of 6 Feb 1922, there is a theme to ditch the capital ships and "set up shop" for submarines and smaller surface vessels. There was an arms race in the construction of cruisers and subs. I present this arms race as a matter of mobilization for pending global war.

Review what the Army Capt Claire Chaulnt (sp?) was doing in China well prior to Pearl / Poland.

The FDR 28 Jan 1938 message to Congress generated some reactions in the press and British Parliament that the Br and US fleets were acting in concert in Asia. I cannot "prove" this yet I ask any challenge to provide some commentary. Note that the USS Panay was bombed and strafed by Japanese shore guns on 12 Dec 1937. FDR hushed this up realizing his war preparations could be interfered with by the Isolationists.

Civilian Conservation Corps did have official opening date(s). I am using a different philosophy. The Congressional trade-off to allow for CCC was prior to the date(s).

United Fruit Company's White Fleet: cargo manifests of mango launchers. I cannot prove this.

True, Teapot dome - and Elk Hills, California was a business scandal. I am using it ie the Naval Petroleum Reserves, as a "tile".

The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 allowed for a long-range program for the enlargement and rebuilding of the US Merchant Marine. These vessels were enrolled in the reserve. A USG subsidy funded much of this.

I already mentioned the famous Federal Reserve Act allowing for the most favorable of financing.

Add all these tiles together and it can be seen that FDR knew that Japan's occupation of Manchuria and more; their state of Manchukuo (1931) plus the situation in Europe........maybe he did have serious worries.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5002
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Sep 2016 15:34

South wrote:Look at the Panama Canal defenses. They extended well beyond the Canal and the lane approaches. For example, USN patrols extended 1,000 NM out.
The Canal and American coast defense went through numerous revisions during the 19th and 20th centuries...were they in anticipation of World War II?
I mentioned the Pan Am China Clipper service. The inaugural flight was November, 1935. Preparations obviously started well prior. The radio and weathel research and refinement was part of the mob efforts.
That's a bit amorphous.
Richard; Must disagree. It's possible / probable we use a different philosophical approach. I say FDR DID anticipate a new European war. Can't discuss "serious worries" but the planning was going on.
FDR was astonishingly prescient then considering he was in office less than two months after Hitler.
In June, 1933 General MacArthur drew up mob plans based on 3 contingencies.
Which was a revision to the 1931 revision of the 1928 Mobilization Plan...which in turn had antecedents on 1916 when Major MacArthur participated in them. Evidently he was even more prescient than FDR.
In his 28 Jan 1938 message to Congress FDR spoke of the "beginning of a vast program of rearmament". FDR did not wait 5 years without taking actions for war mob.
No he didn't. He used that phrase in 1941 in reference to his speech of 28 January 1938. "He was then chiefly concerned with naval armaments, upon which there had been a considerable start in 1934, largely exceeding the "make-work" Army grants of that year, and that he requested only about $17,000,000 to correct a few of the numerous Army deficiencies. For the message and the President's note relating to it see The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (New York: Macmillan, 1941) 1938 Volume, pp. 68-71." See Mark Skinner Watson, Prewar Plans and Preparations, Endnote 2 to Chapter V.
If you review the pre-FDR Naval Treaty of 6 Feb 1922, there is a theme to ditch the capital ships and "set up shop" for submarines and smaller surface vessels. There was an arms race in the construction of cruisers and subs. I present this arms race as a matter of mobilization for pending global war.
Sorry, but what does arms limitations treaties have to do with war mobilization planning and "secret mobilization" by FDR 1933-1939?
Review what the Army Capt Claire Chaulnt (sp?) was doing in China well prior to Pearl / Poland.
Claire Lee Chennault retired from the Army due to ill health and lack of advancement on 30 April 1937. His views at the Air Corps Tactical School had been ignored and/or derided and so he elected to become a merceenary in the employ of China, which was then at war with Japan. What does that have to do with war mobilization planning and "secret mobilization" by FDR 1933-1939?
The FDR 28 Jan 1938 message to Congress generated some reactions in the press and British Parliament that the Br and US fleets were acting in concert in Asia. I cannot "prove" this yet I ask any challenge to provide some commentary. Note that the USS Panay was bombed and strafed by Japanese shore guns on 12 Dec 1937. FDR hushed this up realizing his war preparations could be interfered with by the Isolationists.
Huh? Lack of proof means you have speculation and innuendo, which are the roots of many conspiracy theories. Panay was bombed and strafed by Japanese naval aircraft on orders of the Japanese Army to attack any vessel in the Yangtze. Given the attack was filmed, shown in US newsreels, and generated considerable outrage in the US against Japan, I am unsure what you think was "hushed up"?
Civilian Conservation Corps did have official opening date(s). I am using a different philosophy. The Congressional trade-off to allow for CCC was prior to the date(s).
Yes, you appear to be using the philosophy which allows conspiracy theorists to see National Guard and Reserve drills as Federal programs for seizing personally owned guns.
United Fruit Company's White Fleet: cargo manifests of mango launchers. I cannot prove this.
"Mango launchers"? I dislike mango, but hardly fear them that much.
True, Teapot dome - and Elk Hills, California was a business scandal. I am using it ie the Naval Petroleum Reserves, as a "tile".
A "tile" in a vast mosaic of an unproven conspiracy? Is that correct?
The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 allowed for a long-range program for the enlargement and rebuilding of the US Merchant Marine. These vessels were enrolled in the reserve. A USG subsidy funded much of this.
And beginning in September 1939, resulted in the addition of exactly 33 vessels to the American merchant fleet. An increase of 2.4%. Subtle.
I already mentioned the famous Federal Reserve Act allowing for the most favorable of financing.
So now Woodrow Wilson aided and abetted FDR's jiggery pokery? Very subtle.
Add all these tiles together and it can be seen that FDR knew that Japan's occupation of Manchuria and more; their state of Manchukuo (1931) plus the situation in Europe........maybe he did have serious worries.
FDR was worried? That is the proof of the "secret prewar mobilization"? Subtle.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: The American WW2 Economic Puzzle

Post by South » 20 Sep 2016 17:27

Good afternoon Richard,

We have different view and concepts of what constitutes "war mobilization".

Thus, my examples don't work.

End of Transmission.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia

Return to “Economy”