TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑
02 May 2022 04:03
Nyanko wrote: ↑
01 May 2022 20:14
For example, for Germany and the UK, the index is made by aggregating the outputs of the following categories for which I was able to dig time series for both countries:
Artillery ammo (& mortar)
Major naval vessels
That sounds like a really significant achievement but it's hard to respond without being able to check the math/figures.
Are you planning to publish it somewhere or, if not, would you be able to share the underlying figures?
I've had it in mind to do some of this work myself...
This effort started about 10 years ago when I computed data for German and Soviet ammunition production/consumption. Then in more recent years, I decided to make estimates of munitions output and military expenditures.
I will organize the spreadsheets and put them in an open google doc.
Nyanko wrote:Billions RM -- 1940 - 1941 - 1942 - 1943 - 1944
Germany ----- 4.23 -- 4.71 -- 7.05 -- 11.51 -- 14.99
UK ------------- 2.98 -- 4.57 -- 6.40 -- 7.00 -- 7.00
Billions US dollars -- 1940 - 1941 - 1942 - 1943 - 1944
Germany ------------- 2.46 -- 2.71 -- 4.12 -- 6.66 -- 8.47
UK -------------------- 1.78 -- 2.74 -- 3.91 -- 4.22 -- 4.23
The effect is small but RM figures tend to favor Germany's output more. This might suggest a "real" RM inflation that the typical figures don't fully capture. That wouldn't be surprising but, again, it's hard to respond without knowing what went into the numbers.
The economic reasoning is that measuring output in RM would tend to inflate UK's output since at German-relative prices you expect the Germans to produce more of the cheap stuff and less of the expensive stuff, while different countries would have different relative prices and so their output would not conform to the same constraints and be more valued at German prices.
Overall, however, relative American and German prices were surprisingly close, and typically estimates made one of the other prices didn't change the overall value by more than 5% for any of the 5 countries (Germany, UK, USSR, US, and Japan).
Among many aspects I'd wonder about, how do you treat qualitative differences in set quantities? Do 1,000 P-47's equate to 1,000 Me-109's? Does a Sherman equate to a Panther? Weight is one way to do it but then what about the relative sophistication of each weapon?
I measured everything in terms of weight when available: ammunition, bombs, aircraft, tanks, trucks, and locomotives.
I just measured the weights of aircraft and tanks by the empty weight of each model and I multiplied the quantities of models produced each year. However, for aircraft, I also considered another factor: bigger aircraft tend to be cheaper in proportion to their weight, for example, in 1942 a Me-109 cost about 88,000 RM while a Ju-88 cost 240,000 RM, slightly less than 3 times more but weighed 4 times as much.
Japanese and Soviet aircraft were on average lighter than German aircraft while British and American aircraft are on average heavier. So I adjusted the value of aircraft according to a formula that takes into consideration the weight as well. For example, by weight British production from 1941 to 1944 was 1.23 times German production, by value, it was 1.07 times. By weight, American production was ca. 10 times Japanese production, by value, it was "only" 7 times. By number, it was only 4 times smaller than American production, as Japanese aircraft were mostly light single-engine types.
Another thing to keep in mind is that I only included combat-related related aircraft in the index calculation, so I excluded training and transport aircraft which were a bigger part of US and UK production than in the case of Germany and the USSR.