How did the USSR out produce Germany so badly during the war when Germany's economy was just as large if not larger...

In total, the U.S. deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles , 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food

About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.

Another large fact in industrial production was the lend-lease of a huge number of machine tools and raw materials (stuff like machine compressors and presses)

by ship to Murmansk or Archangelsk, then overland by train

40 percent of Soviet tanks during the Battle of Moscow were western made.

Actually, Vladivostok was the single largest port of call for Lend-Lease.

>How did the USSR out produce Germany so badly during the war when Germany's economy was just as large if not larger depending on what source you use?
They didn't. They outproduced Germany in a few, select categories of munitions but overall, Germany outproduced USSR by several factors. For example, something like 5 times as much steel, 10 times as much aluminum, 5 times as much coal, and obviously shit tons more synthetic oil.

A multitude of reasons. For starters, Germany outproduced the Soviets at the beginning of the war because the USSR was relatively unprepared for war with Germany and they were caught off guard by the invasion/attack. Germany had already mobilized an enormous force to invade the Soviet Union and the Soviets struggled pretty badly at first but as the war progressed and the tides turned, Germany was soon the one that was struggling at the end of operation Barbarossa. With much of their invasion force decimated, the Germans retreated and the Soviets had now adapted to fighting the Germans quite well. The United States also supplied the Soviets heavily as well as the other allies fighting Germany. The Nazis were pretty thinned out in their other operations in North Africa and Western Europe which they had also been losing a lot of resources on. They pretty much couldn't replace these losses afterwards and soon allied bombing campaigns in the later part of the war also left much of the German factories in ruins and as a result their production capabilities also suffered.

>A few, select categories of munitions

Such as tanks, planes, artillery, and small arms. Litlte, unimportant things. Primary resource production doesn't necessarily mean greater manufacturing output.

It's something of a technicality because, since the 1920's and 30's, Russian truck production was already distinctly American.

>In the late 1920s and early 1930s, US engineers, particularly from the Ford and Hercules Motor Companies, helped to design and build the largest of the USSR's automobile and truck factories, particularly the plants at Gorkiy ("Gorkiy Auto Zavod", or GAZ) and the expanded AMO plant in Moscow, which became ZIS.

>These two factories produced the Ford AA light truck, which became the GAZ-AA, and the American Autocar 10-ct Lorry, which became the ZIS-5. In June 1941 the Red Army had 272,600 trucks of all kinds. Since by far the majority were the distinctly American-looking GAZ and ZIS types, the Germans took to referring to the "Russki Ford" or "Fordski" enemy trucks.

>The other large group of vehicles in the Soviet formations were fully tracked towing vehicles collectively referred to as "tractors". The Soviet army was the only army in the world that planned or attempted to have so much of its heavy equipment towed by tracked vehicles in the 1930s. Unfortunately, the tractors in question were almost all variants of the US Holt designs, which were commercial vehicles designed for farm or construction work. As such, they were very slow, unarmored, and not really rugged enough to survive combat conditions. In addition, the majority of the tractors were used in the civilian economy, largely on the collective farms, and only to come to the military on mobilization. In 1941, many of these vehicles never showed up, or showed up just in time to be overrun.

>Once the war started for the Russians, the big truck factories converted almost entirely to tank production. This meant that all Russian motorized and mechanized units suffered from shortages of trucks and transport until late 1943, when the flood of US lend lease vehicles virtually re-equipped the entire Red Army.

There's also a funny bit about it in Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs;

>Almost all our artillery was pulled by American towing equipment. On one occasion after Stalin’s death I proposed: “Let’s give all the transport equipment that we produce to the military because it’s simply embarrassing to see a parade going by and all the artillery is being towed by American trucks.” Almost all the military equipment we had in East Germany was also being towed by American Studebakers. This was an awkward and shameful situation for us. So many years had gone by since the end of the war, and we were still using American trucks.

>Primary resource production doesn't necessarily mean greater manufacturing output.
Steel and aluminum are not primary resources you imbecile. They are manufactured products.

Material production != armament production. Soviet armament production was greater than German armament production in just about every field, not a "few select fields".

You need aluminum to make planes.
You need steel to make tanks.
You need synthetic fuel to run them.
Germany had to divert its manufacturing to make all of those. USSR got theirs for free, which shouldn't lead you to conclude that USSR had greater industrial capacity.
Germany outproduced the Soviets in halftracks, artillery shells and small arms ammunition, submarines, cruisers, battleships, destroyers, machine guns, among other munitions categories. Not sure how you get to just about every field, except by ignoring everything Germany had an edge in.

>Material production != armament production
Which has nothing to do with a comparison of manufacturing ability, since both have to be manufactured. Steel and aluminum aren't dug out of the ground, you moron.

thats a story of WW2 I'd love to hear, the supply guy

I'd love to watch something about the airmen flying across the continents, imagine the journey of the guy who has to stay with the equipment the whole journey, flying across all of Africa, driving along the mountains of Afghanistan, sailing to exotic ports whilst many miles away in Europe fierce fighting takes place, yet you never see any of it

I wonder what it was like

Their tanks and planes were literally made by Mercedes Benz."Craftsmanship" and autistic design requirements mean nothing in a war of mass production. A tank that is 20% better than its peers isn't going to shine when its peers outnumber it 20 to 1.

This is worth a read.

mega.nz/#!1EpSSayS!bVBv4Y4mNaDlaqdK2uIMWeywarnvIjM8HcD9CN6cZak

>Their tanks and planes were literally made by Mercedes Benz
What is your point? MBZ isn't just luxury sedans. They also make trucks and buses.

>It was decided on 28 June to open the seals on one of the three M-3 U.S. Army tanks on the deck, part of the cargo, and to determine whether the 37 millimeter gun in it could be manned and used for the defense of the ship. This was thought advisable in view (1) of the small ammount of mixed tracer and ball .30 ammunition in our lockers; and (2) of the short effective range of the .30 Lewis machine gun against aircraft. This done, the gun was found suitable for use. Ammunition (Armor Piercing with tracer) was broken out of the hold with the aid of the Chief Officer, the gun was test-fired and a two man crew trained and assigned General Quarters stations in the tank.

>Next day a second tank was opened, the 37 mm. gun made ready and manned. One member of the Armed Guard and one of the ship’s crew were used as crew for each of the tank guns."

>You need aluminum to make planes.
>You need steel to make tanks.

You're not very bright, are you? Just because you made more aluminum or steel doesn't actually mean you managed to convert that into more tanks or planes. Clearly, basic logic is beyond you.

>You need synthetic fuel to run them.

You could try real fuel. Shocking idea, I know.

>Germany had to divert its manufacturing to make all of those. USSR got theirs for free, which shouldn't lead you to conclude that USSR had greater industrial capacity.

The Soviets got about 11 billion dollars worth of Lend-lease spread across 4 years (closer to 2 and a half, really, see pic), when they had a combined GDP of about 1,643 billion. They made quite a bit of their own shit without Lend-Lease.

>Soviets in halftracks,

Correct

>artillery shells

Wrong.

amazon.com/Brute-Force-Allied-Strategy-Tactics/dp/0670807737

Funny then, how link related gives the Soviet artillery ammunition production at almost 5 times what the Germans had.

> small arms ammunition,

Wrong.

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/jeh90.pdf

(page 19)

>cruisers, battleships, destroyers,

So helpful in a land war!

> machine guns,

Since when is 1.r7 million less than 1.01 million?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

>. Not sure how you get to just about every field, except by ignoring everything Germany had an edge in.

By busting 3 of the 5 ones you raised, while adding in things like artillery, airplanes, tanks, you know, little things.

Are you the guy who would bring up this paper www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf to "prove" that the Germans outproduced the UK by completely ignoring the economies of their dominions and colonies and then claimed that the latter did nothing useful? You talk an awful lot like that retard.

>>Material production != armament production
Which has nothing to do with a comparison of manufacturing ability, since both have to be manufactured

Actually, it does, follow me on this, this can be a mite tricky.

You start with raw materials. Iron, copper, zinc, coal, whatever. You dig them up out of the ground. But of course, you don't want lots of metals and coal in a bunch of warehouses; you want weapons and ammunition. So you refine said primary resources into weapons and ammo, usually taking several intermediary steps along the way because your guns aren't made out of iron ore and the like.

HAVING MORE PRODUCTION AT ONE LEVEL OF INTERMEDIARY MANUFACTURING DOESN'T MEAN YOU BUILT MORE OF THE END PRODUCT YOU COLOSSAL RETARD.

Reminder

Huge country + large population + ability to maneuver industry away from war zones + "quantity over quality" until well into Operation Bagration + Lend Lease + Germany's overt dependency on oil

'Germany Was Run Badly' is an article written by one of the Strategic Bombing Survey researchers and published in Fortune Magazine in 1945. It''s based both on wartime records and lengthy interrogations with Speer.

paulrittman.com/BadlyRun.pdf

How much of Speer's testimony is exaggerated has been debated ever since. He was interviewed by representatives of multiple countries though, and his comments compared for consistency.

That's something rarely mentioned when discussing WW2 industrialization, the role of American and British industry in both Russia and Germany in the 1920's and 30's had some interesting consequences during the war.

That the American automotive industry had a role in building the plants that would later be converted to produce Soviet tanks may be more a matter of coincidence, but that British and American chemical companies had essentially exported Germany's entire synthetic oil and chemical industries has been called "one of the most dismaying intelligence failures of the war." We essentially had the blue prints to the most lucrative bombing targets in the Reich but instead lost planes and crews over much less important crude oil refineries.

It's something of a curious pitfall when debating the true effect the Western Allies played in the Eastern Front.

>at war with Japan in the Pacific
>still ship through Vladivostok
the madmen

/thread

>HAVING MORE PRODUCTION AT ONE LEVEL OF INTERMEDIARY MANUFACTURING DOESN'T MEAN YOU BUILT MORE OF THE END PRODUCT YOU COLOSSAL RETARD.
How dense are you? When you are comparing total industrial capacity of two nations you look at their total industrial capacities, not some cherrypicked categories that you want to count. Soviet industry was not bigger than German industry. However, they were able to focus more on certain categories of munitions thanks to completely ignoring certain aspects of the war and also thanks to L-L. This isn't hard.

How the fuck did they get all that shipping through to Vladivostok. That's pretty fucking close to Japan. And after the Doolittle Raid, you would think that they'd have more security around their waters.

Germany was largely an agrarian nation during WW2, even France was more industrialized

By giving the cargo ships to the Soviets making them neutral to the Japanese.

Source?

mega.nz/#!sJRBGTKR!Z8NLkPcYoMek_nb3EsJmxgo3VuAbhT_uqKBvxHdzZMA

Huh?

The Americans built the cargo ships then gave them to the Soviets to transport the supplies along the Pacific. The Japs and Soviets had a truce so the Japs wouldn't fire on a ship sailing under a Soviet flag.

German industry at the beginning of the war wasn't as great as people think it was. For example, they were able to actually increase fighter production in 1943 despite Allied bombing campaigns.

>Germany, backed by an entire continent of resources and manpower, still lost to the USSR.
Opposed the the USSR who was supported with lend-lease equipment, right? Not to mention that Germany was permanently being bombed by Britain and America.

Without American support, Russia would have lost. Deal with it.

Judging from Mannerheim tape, communists were worked to death or beyond humanly capacity.

The Mannerheimtape was a private one never meant for the public wasnt it?
Its interesting how Hitler mentions the soviet working conditions in a bad light as if deemed ammoral while running parts of his industry on slaves himself, not to speak of the camps.

I'd go out on a limb and say stalin made every life except the military industry worker a hell on earth, and those guys probably still had it bad by german standards. That's not to say that wasn't hitlers fault at some point as he took the breadbasket for himself quick. Something like the average chinese vs the average norweigan today but that's not something I've researched just picked up from communist bloc parents.

>say stalin made every life except the military industry worker a hell on earth

My grandfather went from a peasant to an aerospace engineer (one of the good stuff of Soviet times, free education), and he remembers about Stalin's era as a hard time, but mostly due to post-war destruction and famine, my grandgrandmother was from an aristocrat landowner family and, despite popular belief that ebil Lenin/Stalin had all the intelligentsia shot, were even allowed to keep the land.

In general, majority of the lower class remembers Stalin's and USSR era in general as a good time, because despite problems with food, the state appeased to working class. It's middle class (except engineers and other industry workers) etc who suffered the most.

Despite many well-known problems, it was still viewed (and actually was) an improvement over monarchic Russia. That's the reason why most of the population has a nostalgic point of view on USSR (huge fuckups of 90s didn't help as well).

Soviet data full of false. Major part of soviet metallurgy was lost in 1941 (Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic Republic).

Because Germany didn't mobilise entirely until 1943 when it tunred into full blown war economy mode under Albert Speer. Up until 1942 for example steel was used for commetcial purposes. Also Germany had trouble importing raw goods.

Hitler made the mistake of trying to shelter people in Germany and minimise the sacrifices that had to be made. On the contrary the regime in the (((Soviet Union))) didn't care about the material conditions of the population.

>didn't care about the material conditions of the population.
>free education
>free healthcare
>free housing
))))))))))

I meant during the war effort the regime was fighting for its survival

>Hitler made the mistake of trying to shelter people in Germany

If that was his goal, maybe he shouldn't have gone to war with his neighbors.

uh, no

Because Germany only introduced war economy and rationing late in the war. Also the soviets had planned economy already so it was easier to shift production to war material.

This is true, instead of using women in the factories like every other nation he wanted them at home raising the family