Economics Quiz

[Josh]

Uhm, that would be then PzKpfw III then?
 
And the one that got even more produced would be the T-34 then?

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Since no one answered without checking... 880 in 1942 of a total production of 9,870 per Wikipedia (other sources give total of just over 13,000 for all years)
The 2nd most produced German Tank...

Which German tank had more produced?

On the allied side production of M4 Sherman variants exceeded 50,000

What tank variant was produced in even larger numbers?

The Germans produced around 16,000 PzKpfw III's.

[aspqrz02]

T-34: 84000 ... including postwar production
T-54/55: 85000 to 100000 (est) entirely postwar, but you didn't specify (not including Chicom copies)

No other tanks come close, AIUI.

Note, however, that T-34 *readiness rate* (i.e. the number of tanks actually *running* at any given time was around 40-50% of the total available during the war, while the readiness rate for Shermans, and, one presumes, British tanks as well, was on the order of 80-90%) ... some parts on the T-34 had a MTBF of 2.5 hours, and many went into action with a spare gearbox strapped to the back deck because the gearbox was so ... iffy ...

There's a reason the Russians equipped an entire Guards Mechanised Army with US vehicles (Shermans, M-3 Halftracks, Trucks etc.) ... and, as you probably know, the number of GMAs was the limiter of the number of simultaneous offensives or offensive prongs that the Russians were able to undertake in 1944-45.

Phil

[JLPOWELL]

Correct and Correct. I see different numbers from different sources but PzIII variants were clearly top produced German tank. And LOTS and LOTS of T34's. in the range of 57,000 to 65,000+ for all variants.

ORIGINAL: Josh

Uhm, that would be then PzKpfw III then?

And the one that got even more produced would be the T-34 then?

[JLPOWELL]

Very good points re readiness. US numbers were always much higher than anyone else for just about all weapon systems. UK numbers were usually very good as well because of they shared the US logistics infrastructure and equipment. German reliability was pretty poor for tanks during the war by comparison as well.

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

T-34: 84000 ... including postwar production
T-54/55: 85000 to 100000 (est) entirely postwar, but you didn't specify (not including Chicom copies)

No other tanks come close, AIUI.

Note, however, that T-34 *readiness rate* (i.e. the number of tanks actually *running* at any given time was around 40-50% of the total available during the war, while the readiness rate for Shermans, and, one presumes, British tanks as well, was on the order of 80-90%) ... some parts on the T-34 had a MTBF of 2.5 hours, and many went into action with a spare gearbox strapped to the back deck because the gearbox was so ... iffy ...

There's a reason the Russians equipped an entire Guards Mechanised Army with US vehicles (Shermans, M-3 Halftracks, Trucks etc.) ... and, as you probably know, the number of GMAs was the limiter of the number of simultaneous offensives or offensive prongs that the Russians were able to undertake in 1944-45.

Phil

[battlevonwar]

Less reliable tanks with larger monsters, poor R&D, dwindling fuel supplies with Factories for Ball Bearings being crushed, along with say the distance from home and poor supply capabilities... All these could explain that to me.

I think anyone can plainly see that the Germans had to win early. They had to gamble. That or build an A-Bomb. I am shocked at the lack of numbers they had in tanks, when everyone refers to WW2 it's always a Panzer. Rather than a Russian-American Tank. Which were in far greater numbers and ultimately superior for that.

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Very good points re readiness. US numbers were always much higher than anyone else for just about all weapon systems. UK numbers were usually very good as well because of they shared the US logistics infrastructure and equipment. German reliability was pretty poor for tanks during the war by comparison as well.

[JLPOWELL]

These games always seem to make A-Bomb an option for 'everyone' This is Totally ridiculous... NO one was building an A-Bomb in WW2 except the US. It just wasn't going to happen. They didn't know this at the time of course and the US had the advantage of access to top UK and Commonwealth talent plus the pool of 'Brain Drain'* refugee talent. Even the USSR as an emerging superpower with a much larger economy than Germany (when they got it) only managed by the end of August, 1949 (over 4 years after the US) and then on the espionage coattails of the US project Germany for had not the technical capability infrastructure or raw materials to even come close.

After the war it was clear that Germany if left alone and if they had made it a national priority they might have had 'The Bomb' by the early 1950's. As it was the Japanese were as close or closer than Germany ever got (which is to say no where) The resources expended by the US Manhattan Project would have absorbed nearly the entire German GDP even had they the know how and materials.

An example of the infrastructure disparity is the Grand Coulee Dam located (not coincidentally) near the (then) secret Hanford Nuclear Project. ALONE it generated the equivalent of about 10% of TOTAL peak German electric production.

* Some of the key Manhattan Project scientific talent were 'from' Italy, Hungary and Germany, but they had all relocated away from Fascism before the war.

[quote]ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Less reliable tanks with larger monsters, poor R&D, dwindling fuel supplies with Factories for Ball Bearings being crushed, along with say the distance from home and poor supply capabilities... All these could explain that to me.

I think anyone can plainly see that the Germans had to win early. They had to gamble. That or build an A-Bomb. I am shocked at the lack of numbers they had in tanks, when everyone refers to WW2 it's always a Panzer. Rather than a Russian-American Tank. Which were in far greater numbers and ultimately superior for that.

[JLPOWELL]

Looking at the production economic realities show that for Germany WW2 was a Kobayashi Maru scenario.

Practically speaking like Japan they were doomed by the initial conditions. Its actually pretty amazing they did as well and lasted as long as they did. The monumental errors they made were only exceeded those of their opponents. A little early allied backbone or a bit less Soviet gullibility and the war might have been shorter. The invincible 3rd Reich is just a myth...

But you need a bit of myth to make a WW 2 game playable so Like ToF every design I have seen boosts Germany enough to give them at least the chance to actually defeat the US USSR and UK. Faced with sufficient political tenacity by their opponents they were doomed.

Like Japan's bad bet on the US reaction Germany gambled on the UK suing for peace. The only 'sure victory' was against Poland and that took a LOT of what Germany had at the time. Any of several slightly different decisions and they could have been stopped by France. Each campaign was a 'must win quick long shot' with ever poorer odds for Germany, but the Allies and USSR only had to not loose.

[battlevonwar]

I agree and totally disagree, on both that Germany winning WW2 was very fictional on both ends. A tiny nation of under a hundred million with very modest Industry defeating the Three Largest Economic Super Powers in the World. The point being that the GHC was very skeptical about even defeating Poland. You're right about this. I think they were in shock about France. It is a classic Scenario of blunder after blunder... Both with "mobilization and choices." Plus the Germans were gambling and winning, that ran out, when they had their butts handed to them by 1941, game over.

At that point though, before they were foolish enough to push their Engines too far, they had gambled and won enough to make some realistic decisions. In this I believe that something else would be possible and one can never predict the outcome. You also forget we think in the constraints of history books. Had The USSR collapsed and it was very likely without help there eventually would be a lot to worry about. That gamble nearly payed off. People disagree with this, but I cannot believe them. Where tens of millions perish, how much further do you have to drive your Armies?

Atom Bombs complete fiction? Allies deeply feared a dirty bomb on the Beaches of Normandy. Plus this game runs a lot longer than 1945. Granted even in TOF it's not practical for Germany to research an A-Bomb so it is very revealing. It would have been the wise decision for that nation and not start a war you cannot win.

[JLPOWELL]

Nukes are an area I know a bit about... The allies 'feared' lots of things. In this case non existent things. The 'fear' in this case was not a 'dirty atom bomb' but use of radioactive material to contaminate an area (technically much easier than building a bomb) But like poison gas it would be pretty indiscriminate and defensive measures (albeit limited) can be taken. In any case the Germans did not (unknown to the allies in 1944) have the capacity.

BTW one of terrorist scenarios some worry about today is a so called 'dirty bomb' scattering a material like Cesium-137 as contamination... LOL I likely just got this thread flagged by NSA and Homeland security.

[aspqrz02]

The Brits were intent on producing an A-Bomb, TubeAlloys and all that, and even believed that they could have it ready by 1944/45 ... wishful thinking, of course, as they simply didn't have the resources to throw at the problems that arose that the US did ... but, of course, they did manage to build one in the end ... and the US had reneged on their agreement to share atomic technology, so the British Bomb's main advantage was that they knew it could be done and what some of the dead ends were.

That said, the US economy managed to pursue three massive resource intensive programs in WW2 ... all about the same size in terms of cost and resource expenditure ... the Manhattan Engineering District (aka the Atom Bomb), the Liberty/Victory Ship program and the B-29/B-36 program.

The Germans managed one. The V-Weapons.

The British? I suppose you call Strategic Bombing their one program, though that's a bit of a stretch.

And, of course, the US achieved all that while their standard of living actually increased during the war ... something completely unprecedented ... even allowing for rationing!

The Germans actually knew that they were overmatched by the US, especially, but also knew they couldn't match the UK or the USSR in the medium to long term ... they knew they had to beat them separately (defeat in detail) and they knew they had to do it quickly, Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" is particularly good and up to date on the details, but there are earlier books and articles that were already hinting at some of the issues as early as the 1980's and 1990's.

But, ultimately, it's like the scene at the end of Band of Brothers when the US soldiers are riding along a German autobahn in a truck and all the defeated German soldiers are marching off (home? into captivity?) on foot or on horse drawn waggons ... and one of the US soldiers yells out "What were you thinking?" at the sight and the comparison.

Hitler and the Nazis knew it was a gamble, and Hitler, at least, believed that the Aryans had to take it or die trying ... and, of course, believed that the advantage of an early rearmament, supposed democratic weaknesses, and surprise would be enough.

It wasn't.

Phil

Phil