F6F production numbers and HUGE discrepancies...

[Charles2222]

Apollo11: Can I ask you a question?

Why is it we see books that say "World War II" and then they extend the productiuon figures BEYOND WWII? What's the point in that? The problem is, probably in your case as well, that they give the figure for 3 months beyond the war and therefore pad the figures. It's nice to know they were still producing them, but I've seen this sort of thing with the USSR too. They will compare German production of war material to the USSR and then show you figures of USSR production that went past the time Germany was in the war, therefore, padding the USSR figures. It's like the victor gets padding rights. At least in the USSR's case they were fighting Japan, but in such a case the production comparison to Germany should be switched off while the comparison to Japan is switched on.

Perhaps the stats you see list it this way and so you don't have any choice and can't break it down to early August of '45 for both sides, but it is very bogus to compare two nations who were at war with each other and then add up post-conflict figures for the victor and ignoring any the vanquished may had still been producing, which in most cases I would imagine was close to halted by the victor. It's just not a fair comparison. The whole point of any such comparison anyway, is to see what they were producing "during" the war (and perhaps before). I can somewhat see the argument that the victor was still producing a few months beyond that for the same conflict, and thereafter was producing for any future conflicts, but it does conflict with an honest analysis of what the two sides had to fight with IMO.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Apollo11: Can I ask you a question?

Why is it we see books that say "World War II" and then they extend the productiuon figures BEYOND WWII? What's the point in that? The problem is, probably in your case as well, that they give the figure for 3 months beyond the war and therefore pad the figures. It's nice to know they were still producing them, but I've seen this sort of thing with the USSR too. They will compare German production of war material to the USSR and then show you figures of USSR production that went past the time Germany was in the war, therefore, padding the USSR figures. It's like the victor gets padding rights. At least in the USSR's case they were fighting Japan, but in such a case the production comparison to Germany should be switched off while the comparison to Japan is switched on.

Perhaps the stats you see list it this way and so you don't have any choice and can't break it down to early August of '45 for both sides, but it is very bogus to compare two nations who were at war with each other and then add up post-conflict figures for the victor and ignoring any the vanquished may had still been producing, which in most cases I would imagine was close to halted by the victor. It's just not a fair comparison. The whole point of any such comparison anyway, is to see what they were producing "during" the war (and perhaps before). I can somewhat see the argument that the victor was still producing a few months beyond that for the same conflict, and thereafter was producing for any future conflicts, but it does conflict with an honest analysis of what the two sides had to fight with IMO.

No idea... books are what books are... and statistics in books are... well.. statistics (that you should not trust 100%)... [:D]

Also the 1945 production in both Germany and Japan should be taken... (again) well... in question... since their industry and distribution channels (for both materials and finished products) were disentigrating...


Leo "Apolo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Another obvious point to reduce the discrepancy would be that some would be no longer active because they were replaced by later models - F6F-5s instead of F6F-3s.

But, there is another error which should be noted.
"Now, I have number for whole Hellcat production (including all subtypes) which is 12275 (from 30 September of 1942 till 16 November 1945).

Note that in this 25 and half months it means that average monthly production was 481 units."

Now unless the calendar has changed from 30 September 1942 to 16 November 1945 is actually 37 and a half months. Which means that the monthly production figure (on average) would be 327.333 units. I think the real discrepancy would be why in the name of.. well, you know... would the USN build 144 night fighters a month. I think the 288 Hellcats produced in game turns would have been distributed a little differently, say like 216/72, or even 240/48.

Also, remember that some of the Squadrons show up fully or partially equipped. All of the units don't have to be fleshed out.

Eeeeeeeek...

Well... you know... I originally posted this 2 years ago... and... well... you know... I remember that I wrote this after one (and few more) beers... [8D]


Leo "Apolo11"

[Speedysteve]

Excuses Leo[;)]
 
Beer brings enlightenment!

[Jakerson]

I see this thread bit funny if you produce X number of planes per year doesn’t equal that they all reach and stay operational condition at given point of time.

It all depends how heavily you use your air force and how big your air force is if you have massive air force that fly a lot wear and tear write off numbers go so high that even if you produce 1 Million planes per year your actual plane number might go down all time causing negative replacement rates.

For example war on IRAQ wears and tears USA army equipment so rapidly that USA army needs to produce thousands of M2A2, hummers, bradleys just to stop negative growth in equipment numbers. It also means additional 9BN USA dollars wear and tear bill each year for next 10 years even if war on Iraqs ends today.

I find it very surprising that somebody hasn’t figured this out in two years when I figured it out in less than a minute.

[RevRick]

Operational losses were taken into account in the opening post. This thread is about the discrepancy between the number of AC produced in the game and the number actually produced in the time period of the game in real life, with a rabbit trail about how the numbers produced are allocated.

[Jakerson]

Operational losses in the game only include planes that are lost during mission not planes that are replaced becouse of wear and tear as part of maintenance work. Planes that are replaced becouse of wear and tear are not counted as "losses", becouse game wont keep track of the natural life cycle of individual planes. In real life natural life cycle is pretty important issue.

I'm not going to use iron wire to explain how natural life cycle of technical stuff works but it needed to be accounted for.