**
World War II -- tanks production evonomic factors
World War II Tanks: Production--Economic Factors
Figure 1.--The United States and the Soviet Union produced the greatest number of armored fighting vehicles. Germany which has many advantages serious underperformed. This is understandable compared to America. What is surprising is that they so significantly underperformed the Soviet Union, a country that had a more limited industrial capacity and which the Germans suceeded in occupying a substantial area of its most developed territory. The Sobiers and Germans vegan producungbsubstantiak nnumbrs of tanks in the 1930s. American did not begin producing substantial numbers of tanks until 1942. Here the firstvb first M-4 Sherman tank rolls off the assembly line of the General Motors Corporation's tank plant (July 1942). An important patt of the difference was the assembly line which we see here.
A World War II tank expert reports that there are four factors involved in tank production: 1) money (capital), 2) labor, 3) steel production, and 4) energy. [Parshall] There is no question who had the money (capital) to build tanks. It was the United States. While Congress approved approprtations for the Navy and Air Force before the War, appropriariions for the Army were very limited. And thus work on tanks not to mention actual construction was very limited. When World War II broke out in Europe, the U.S. Armny had only 400 light tanks (M-2 Suarts). This did not change until the fall of France (June 1940), but it was not until Pearl Harbor (December 1941) that the United States threw virtually unlimited money into tank prodyction. The first result was the ungainly M-3 Grant/Lee -- a Rube Goldberg contaption, but actually arrived in North Africa to aid the British. The M-4 Shermans were becoming available (mid-1942) and played an important role in the El Alameein battle (October 1942). capital was more of a problem for the other beligerants. The Soviets raised capital by virually starving their population duting the War. Amrican Lend Lease began reaching the Soviets in quanitty (1943) and supported the tank constrction effort. The Germans before the War supported the tank and other armament program by deficit spending. After lainching the War, it was supported by exploiting the occupied countrues. In terms of population comparable to labor force the Soviets Union and America were the leading countries. After Barbarossa, however, the Sovierts lost a sizeable part of its population and labir force. This narrowed the German labor force gap with the Soviets. The Germans relied heavily on forced labor from the occupied countries for their war economy. For tank construction, however, we believe that they mostly used skilled labor in the Reich and to a lesser extent Czrechoslovakia. This meant that unlike the other three factors, the countries, especially the Soviets and Germans were relatively comparable. It was in terns of steel that America outshown all other World War II neligerants. This was not classified information. Yes the Axis powers dismissed it as a key factor. This mean that country could outproduce America in tank or other major weapm system. It was all a matter of the priorities that the United States set. But what is also notable is how significantly Germany out produced the Soviets in steel production. This means that Germany had the potetial to significantly exceed Soviet tank production. Fiinally in terms of energy.Germany was in a relatively good position. The primary fuel used in Europe and America was coal. This was the rare natural resource that Germany had in quantity. And because unlike other industrial facilities, coal mines could not be evacuated east. Soviet production was this suvstantially reduced by Barbarossa. Like most of the other factors, Germany had the caoacity to out produce the Soviets in tanks.
Capital
There is no question who had the money (capital) to build tanks during World War II. It was the United States. And the mechanism was War Bond sales. Eveb the kids pitched in buying Liberty Savings Stamps. President Roosevelt was criticized for New Deal defecit spending. The World War II deficuts dwarfed Wthe NewDeal defecits. Congress had approved increasing approprtations for the Navy and Air Force before the War, justified as defensive measures. Appropriariions for the Army, however, were very limited. And thus work on tanks, not to mention actual construction was very limited. When World War II broke out in Europe (1939) the U.S. Army had only a handfull of tanks. This did not begin to change until the fall of France (June 1940). Even so the Army had than 400 light tanks (M-2 Suarts) (1941). Pearl Harbor chanhed everything (December 1941). The United States threw virtually unlimited money into arms production, including tanks. The first result was the M-3 Grant/Lee a true Rube Goldberg contraption, perhaps the most absurd cincotiin of the War. But actually arrived in North Africa to significantly aid the British. By late-1942 the M-4 Shermans were becoming available in numbers and played an important role in the El Alamein battle (October 1942). Capital was more of a problem for the other beligerants. The Soviets raised capital by virually starving their population duting the War. Amrican Lend Lease began reaching the Soviets in quanitty (1943) and supported the tank constrction effort. The Germans before the War supported the tank and other armament program by massuve deficit spending. The German state that Hitker and the NAZIs controlled of was in a weakened financial state as a result of World War I and the Great Depression. Hitler's primary goal was to rearm Germany. Germany did not have the financing for a massive rearmament program. So Germany had to embark on unprecesebted defecit spending. Ans Hitler had a financial genius, Hjalmar Schacht, to hide the level of spending. After launching the War, Hitler financed the War by exploiting the occupied countries. London at the beginning of the 20th century the world financial center. It was ome of the reason the Allies prevailed on World War I. Britain's financial strength helped to keep France and Italy in the War. Hermam fought the War wuth a stronger army, but from a financially weaker position. This was a factor in the Allied victory. Britain prevailed in the War, but was severely weakned by the econonic strain. After only a year of World War II, Britain was facing national bankruptsy. The American blank check (Lend Lease) was vital in keeping Britain in the War.
In terms of population which provided the basis for the potential labor force, the Soviets Union and America were the leading industrial countries. (China had a larger pipulation, but was not industrialized.) The United States had a large population, some 130 million people. And even when World War II conscription began in large numbers, actually expanded the work force by drawing on several poorly utilized groups (agriculatural workers, youths, women, and African-Americans). Labor was an issue in America during the War, but did not seriously impair American war production. Next to China, the Soviet Union was the most populace country in the world, about 170 million people. And this was before the Soviets invaded and annexed the territory of neighboring states (Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania) as a NAZI ally (1939-41). After Barbarossa (1941), however, the Soviets lost a sizeable part of its population and labor force--but imprtantly not much of its Russian heartland. The Soviets conducted a massive effort to move industry and undustrial workers away fron the advanving German Panzers. This was a huge success, something the Germans had not anticipated. It however led to a serious problems -- feeding their population including the workers. The Germans occupied the Ukraine--the Soviet breadbasket. The Soviets has a food problen even before the Germans attacked. Stalin's collectibization program and murder of the Ukranianian peasantry, has reduced agricultural haevests. ndustrial workers were given a larger food ration than the general population. The German occupation of the western Soviet Union narrowed the German labor force gap with the Soviets. The Germans, however. as they mobilized and began to suffer real casualties also experiencd a labor shortage. They had to conscript more and more workers for the war effort. The German answer was to turn to the population in the occupied countries. Hitler would fly into tirades if anyone mentioned labor shortages. He would scream that with the population of the occupied countries under contol -- there could not possibly be a labor shortage. The Germans to an extent used the economiesvof theboccupied countries to produce military supplies. For major weapons systems, such as tanks, however, production was almost mostly done in the Reich. (The Czech Skoda plant was an exception.) The Germans thus relied heavily on various recruitment schemes. And because most people were reluctant to volunteer, the Germand inevitably turned primarily to slave and forced labor from the occupied countries to man their war economy. For tank construction, however, we believe that the Germans mostly used skilled labor in the Reich and to a lesser extent Czechoslovakia. This meant that unlike the other three factors, the Soviets had a greater potential. The Germans had, however, as a result of Barbarossa, substantially reduced the Soviet labor advantage.
No single indivator so affected arns production as steel. Most weapons systems required steel, normally large quantiries of steel. The major exception was airctaft which normarily used aluminum or to a lesser extent plywood. But even with aircraft large quantities of steel was needed. The armament, engines, amd munitions carried on aiecraft involved large quantities of steel. Thus a fully loaded plane commonly carried more steel than aluminum. And this doesn't include the steel needed for aircraft plants and tools. It was in terms of steel that America outshown all other World War II beligerants. This was not classified information. Yes the Axis powers dismissed it as a key factor. They essentially made a bet that they could win the War before America could convert its industry from peace time to war production-the Arsenal of Democracy. And the Amerivan steel indudtry was at the heart of it. The Axis bet proved to be a very bad one. Hitler actually had some idea about the danger posed by American industry. It is why he ordered Admiral Dönitz to avoid sinking American shipping. The Japanese actually studied the issue, but decided that China could only be defeated by attacking America leading to Pearl Harbor (December 1941). Hitler declared war 3 days later. Ironically at the sane exact time, the Red Army launched a massive winter counter offensive which insured that there would be no quick German victory but insteasd a war of attrition in which the American steel industry would play a central role. No country could outproduce America in tank or any other major weapon system. It was all a matter of the priorities that the United States set. But what is also notable is how significantly Germany out produced the Soviets in steel production. Stalin had put a priority on heavy industry, meaning primarily steel production. This significantly exaanded steel production in as a central component of his Five Year Plans. This enabled the Soviet Union at the onset of World War II to amass the world's largest tank force. Even so, the Soviet steel industry was only a fraction the size of German steel industry. Two resources are necessary for a steel industry--iron and coal. Hitler launched World War II without the natural resources needed for an extended war. But steel was not a problem. Germany had coal, but little iron. The Germans were able as in World War I to obtain all the iron ore it needed from neutral Sweden throughout the War. Other natural resources were problematic, especially oil, but iron ore was not a problem. This meant that Germany had the potetial to significantly exceed Soviet tank production. The fact that they did not was a key factor in the outcome of World War II. Part of the reason for this was that Germany while concentrating its manpower in the East could not concentrate its industrial production to support the Ostheer--largely because of the Western Allies. Britain also had a substantial steel industry but had to use much of it to support the Royal Navy.
The Allies were in an enviable position in terms of energy. Coal is am important analog for energy in World War II. In terms of energy, the United States was the leading producer.
And in Europe, Britain was a leading exporter of coal. Germany was in a relatively good position, at least compared to its poor position with other important natural resources. The primary industrial fuel used in Europe and America was coal. Not only was it used in industrial processes, but it was the primary fuel used to generate electricity.
Coal was the rare natural resource that Germany had in quantity. Oil was imprtant in transport, but it was coal that drove industry. And Geramny had far more coal than the Soviet Union, especally after Barbarossa (1941) gave Germany possession of the Ukranian coal mines, many located in the Don Bas. Germamy actually oriduced nearly as much coal as the United States. Ironically, Germany's conquests adversely affected its energy situation. The new NAZI Großraum had a major problem. It was dependent on British coal. If Germany was hoping to exploit the economies of the occupied countries they needed to function. And to function they needed energy--namely coal. Before the War, British mines supplied the energy needs of many countries occupied by the Germans. So the Germans had to provide some of their coal to keep the economies of the occupied countries functioning. This created a coal shortage within the Reich itself.
Soviet coal production was far below that of Germamny. The Soviet Union has a cornucopia of natural resurces. Coal was the one resource that Germany outproduced the Soviets. And because unlike other industrial facilities, coal mines could not be evacuated east. Soviet coal production was thus substantially reduced by Barbarossa.
Like most of the other factors, Germany had the capacity to out produce the Soviets in tanks, but failed disasterously to do so.
Sources
Parshall, Jonathan. "Tank production: A comparative study of output in Germany, the US, and the USSR," (November 23, 2013).
2013 International Conference on WWII - Kursk The Epic Armored Engagement.
