Biggest contributor view #1: "Losses inflicted to the Axis powers"

World War II General WWII Discussion
#1

Guys!!!

Important in order to keep this thread functioning and not to drown in off-topic.
I kindly ask you to keep your comments shot and straight to the point. No off-topic please. If you want to cretisice the numbers I give, You HAVE to propose your own with short, but reasonable explanation and sources. Remember that the scenario below is just one of the saveral and is not supposed to explain the Victory alone!

View #1:
In order to defeat Axis powers their forces had to be destroyed.
The forces consist of Ground force, Air force and Fleet.
The Axis powers are Germany including all of Europe but without Italy, Japan and Italy.

Since these country had invested different resources into the waging WW2 we split the importance of their destruction according to their war expences
(source: the book is at home right now. will be added later):
[INDENT]

[u]Importance of Destruction[/u]

Germany:  70%
  Japan:  20% 
  Italy:  10%

Secondly, the importance of the destruction of sertain force type was diffent for different Axis powers. For example, the destruction of Japaneese Navy had much more severe implications for Japan, than destruction of German Navy for Germany. In this light I assigned the following weights:

[u]Importance of the Force type Destruction[/u]

          Ground  Air    Fleet
Germany:   0,60   0,26   0,14
  Japan:   0,20   0,30   0,50
  Italy:   0,34   0,33   0,33

Finaly the share of each main Allied country in the destruction per Axis power and per force type.
This data means, that I estimate USA had destroyed 20% of Japanese ground forces, 50% of Japanese airforces and 70% of Japanese fleet. The numbers are my estimates:


[u]Share of Axis forces destroyed per Allied country            [/u]

[u]Germany                                [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,70	0,20	0,05	0,05
Air	0,33	0,22	0,35	0,10
Fleet	0,05	0,20	0,70	0,05

[u]Japan                                  [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,25	0,20	0,30	0,25
Air	0,05	0,50	0,30	0,15
Fleet	0,05	0,70	0,20	0,05

[u]Italy                                  [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,30	0,30	0,30	0,10
Air	0,35	0,25	0,35	0,05
Fleet	0,05	0,35	0,55	0,05

[/INDENT]

These are my assumptions. Some are more grounded than the others.
Do you agree? Any corrections? Please comment.

After we roughly agree on these assumptions I will calculate the share of the input for each main Allied country into the Victory, for this scenario #1.

Update: The latest result of the discussion in this thread:

Comment:
UK in this exercise consist of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The “Other” part consist of all the Allied countries except USA, USSR and UK. F.ex. France, India, Greece, ect.
Remaining uncertainties:
[ul]
[li]the losses inflicted to Japanees in China
[/li][li]The distribution of Italian losses may need refinement
[/li][/ul]

[u]Importance of Destruction                              [/u]
        Germany	Italy	Japan
        70%	10%	20%

[u]Importance of the Force type Destruction                     [/u]
        Ground   Air     Fleet
Germany 0,60    0,26    0,14
Japan   0,20    0,30    0,50
Italy   0,34    0,33    0,33

[u]Germany: share of forces destroyed per Allied country        [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,70	0,20	0,05	0,05
Air	0,30	0,22	0,40	0,08
Fleet	0,05	0,20	0,70	0,05

[u]Italy: share of forces destroyed per Allied country          [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,15	0,10	0,70	0,05
Air	0,05	0,25	0,68	0,02
Fleet	0,05	0,10	0,80	0,05

[u]Japan: share of forces destroyed per Allied country          [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,09	0,35	0,45	0,11
Air	0,01	0,60	0,37	0,02
Fleet	0,01	0,70	0,26	0,03

[b][u]Final Result: the losses inflicted to the Axis powers       [/u]
        USSR	USA	UK	Other
        36,7%	27,9%	30,1%	5,3%
[/b]

image7.gif

#2 

[u]Share of Axis forces destroyed per Allied country            [/u]

[u]Germany                                [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,70	0,20	0,05	0,05

I think the USA is a bit high here, unless you’re calculating the impact of lend-lease material on the Allied Armies - it isn’t four times that of the UK. Overlord was pretty much evenly split between the US and UK, and by the end of the war the US wasn’t much more than twice as powerful as the UK on the ground in Europe.
I suggest 0,75 0,15 0,10, and am counting Australians, Canadians, Indians etc. under Britain. The rest count for less than 1% of the total.

Air	0,33	0,22	0,35	0,10

I think you’re somewhat overestimating the Soviet air force and very much overestimating the RAF here. While the USAAF took time to grow, by the end of the war it was by a massive margin the most powerful in the world. The RAF do well for being there from the start, while again the only significant contribution from “others” would be from the Australians and (particularly) Canadians flying for the RAF. These were so heavily integrated it makes sense to describe them as British.
I suggest 0,3 0,35 0,35

Fleet	0,05	0,20	0,70	0,05

Pretty much fair - assuming again that the Canadians were counted as British. If you count them seperately, then you have to allow for the fact that they had the third most powerful navy on earth by summer 1945, virtually all of it committed to the North Atlantic. If they are counted as British, then others pretty much sums up the contribution of the various “Free” navies plus the Italians after they changed sides.

[u]Japan                                  [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,25	0,20	0,30	0,25
Air	0,05	0,50	0,30	0,15
Fleet	0,05	0,70	0,20	0,05

This depends so much on who “Other” is - the British effort in the far east was overwhelmingly an Australian, Indian and West African one. I think the Soviet contribution is overblown though - the Kwantung army was largely a hollow force by the time the Soviets attacked, and couldn’t really do anything useful given where it was anyway. The US ground fighting however is I think underrated - I would put it about the same level of importance as the British forces in Burma, with virtually all the other credit going to the Chinese. They were hardly effective, but tied down a hell of a lot of Japanese troops for a long time.

[u]Italy                                  [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,30	0,30	0,30	0,10
Air	0,35	0,25	0,35	0,05
Fleet	0,05	0,35	0,55	0,05

Way off - the US scarcely faced any Italian forces at all during the war, and the Soviets never even saw the Italian fleet. I would put the ground forces as 0,05 0,15 0,65 0,15. Italy sent roughly 200,000 men at peak against the Soviets for a relatively short period of time, losing about 20,000 dead and 60,000 captured. They lost three times as many dead against France in 1940! In comparison, the British captured around a quarter of a million Italians in North Africa in 1940/early 1941 alone.
Air is probably similar - again, it was overwhelmingly a British/Dominion/Empire campaign.
Fleet is probably 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 - the RN pretty much destroyed the RM, and I’m not aware of anybody else getting in on the action.

#3

You seem to be underrating Japan quite a bit. The Japanese territories actually had a larger population than the reich.

#4

Control of the air seems to be important for a successful ground campaign. Who controls the air may determine success on the ground.
Planes can be very effective against ground forces.

#5

WW2 was very much an industrial war, and Japan was very underdeveloped industrially despite their occasional obvious success. I suspect you’ll probably find Italy had higher industrial production in WW2 than Japan.

#6

For example Japan was roughly 7 times larger [population wise] than Canada yet the industrial output wasn’t even close in terms of per capita production and in some cases Canada produced more than Japan outright.

Artillery:
Japan = 13,350
Canada = 10,552

Tanks and self-propelled guns:
Canada = 5,678
Japan = 2,515

Military Trucks:
Canada = 815,729
Japan = 165,945

Military aircraft of all types:
Japan = 76,320
Canada = 16,431
^ Somewhat proportionate to population

Machine guns:
Japan = 380,000
Canada = 251,925

Again… considering Japan had a population of 73 million compared to Canada with 11 that alone shows that Japans war industry was lacking. Throw Great Britain [and the rest of the Commonwealth] aswell as the US into the picture and you can see Japans war industry was severely underdeveloped.

Edit:

Regarding Italy outperforming Japans industry… considering Italy had around 45 million people, in atleast one case they did outperform Japan:

Tanks and self-propelled guns:
Japan = 2,515
Italy = 2,473
^ Relative to population the Italian industry produced more tanks

Artillery:
Japan = 13,350
Italy = 7,200
^ Output is generally equal

Military trucks:
Japan = 165,945
Italy = 83,000
^ Japan slightly more, but generally equal

Military aircraft of all types:
Japan = 76,320
Italy = 11,122
^ Japan outdid Italy here by quite a bit

#7

The lend-lease is not inclded at all in this scenario #1. It is only about the losses inflicted to the enemy, both material and lifes. The lend-lease will be accounted in an other scenario for the economical side of the war.

Overlord was pretty much evenly split between the US and UK, and by the end of the war the US wasn’t much more than twice as powerful as the UK on the ground in Europe.
I suggest 0,75 0,15 0,10, and am counting Australians, Canadians, Indians etc. under Britain. The rest count for less than 1% of the total.

I actually was thinking of “others” as any one exept USA, USSR, Britain. So that mainly would be other Common wealth countries. But may be we should include them into UK in our calculation. Right? Or maybe not? In the Pacific theater, as I understand, British did not play the main role.

What do you suggest?

Air	0,33	0,22	0,35	0,10

I think you’re somewhat overestimating the Soviet air force and very much overestimating the RAF here. While the USAAF took time to grow, by the end of the war it was by a massive margin the most powerful in the world. The RAF do well for being there from the start, while again the only significant contribution from “others” would be from the Australians and (particularly) Canadians flying for the RAF. These were so heavily integrated it makes sense to describe them as British.
I suggest 0,3 0,35 0,35

It does not matter how strong the USAF got at the end of the war. The important how much losses was inflicted during 1939-1945.

We have to settle if “others” should mean all the common wealth countries excluding GB. It makes big difference in Pacific.

Can you recomend any further sources about the German airforce losses?

Fleet	0,05	0,20	0,70	0,05

Pretty much fair - assuming again that the Canadians were counted as British. If you count them seperately, then you have to allow for the fact that they had the third most powerful navy on earth by summer 1945, virtually all of it committed to the North Atlantic. If they are counted as British, then others pretty much sums up the contribution of the various “Free” navies plus the Italians after they changed sides.

Again, the size and importance of the Canadian navy does not count in here it self. How much losses did they make. I do not know. Please suggest.

And again lets deside if “others” and UK are kept separate. Maybe instead of UK I should have writen GB?

[u]Japan                                  [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,25	0,20	0,30	0,25
Air	0,05	0,50	0,30	0,15
Fleet	0,05	0,70	0,20	0,05

This depends so much on who “Other” is - the British effort in the far east was overwhelmingly an Australian, Indian and West African one. I think the Soviet contribution is overblown though - the Kwantung army was largely a hollow force by the time the Soviets attacked, and couldn’t really do anything useful given where it was anyway. The US ground fighting however is I think underrated - I would put it about the same level of importance as the British forces in Burma, with virtually all the other credit going to the Chinese. They were hardly effective, but tied down a hell of a lot of Japanese troops for a long time.

You are right - 0,25 for ground forces by USSR is too much. Kwantung Army was app 11% of the Japanese ground strength in 1945 and not well equiped. So I suggest 9% for it.

Also note that I assigned 0,25 for the ground to “others”. This is mainly due to Chineese and Australians.

[u]Italy                                  [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,30	0,30	0,30	0,10
Air	0,35	0,25	0,35	0,05
Fleet	0,05	0,35	0,55	0,05

Way off - the US scarcely faced any Italian forces at all during the war, and the Soviets never even saw the Italian fleet. I would put the ground forces as 0,05 0,15 0,65 0,15. Italy sent roughly 200,000 men at peak against the Soviets for a relatively short period of time, losing about 20,000 dead and 60,000 captured. They lost three times as many dead against France in 1940! In comparison, the British captured around a quarter of a million Italians in North Africa in 1940/early 1941 alone.
Air is probably similar - again, it was overwhelmingly a British/Dominion/Empire campaign.
Fleet is probably 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 - the RN pretty much destroyed the RM, and I’m not aware of anybody else getting in on the action.

I have to admit that the data for Italy is the most vague for me. So lets talk.

Soviets did see Italian fleet in both Black sea (6 subs and 6 torpedo boats) ans Baltic sea. Of course not near in the scale of actions in Miditarenians sea. I know for sure about the italian high speed torpedo boats (MAS) and their losses in the Baltic.

I agree USSR probably did not account for 0,30 of Italian ground losses. But I think it was higher than 0,05. WE need more data on the total size of the Italian army and number of Italian POW.

Yes, I remembered the France in 1940 but might have underestimated it.

Agree USSR did not destroy 35% of Italian air force. The Italian expeditionary force in Russia had app. 70 airplanes. Need more statistics on this. As well as for the fleet.

But thanks a lot, pdf27, for the very constructive input!!!
Lets continue.

#8

Guys, I rated the coutries based on the amount resources/money they invested into the war. The numbers I have are from the 4 volume history of WW2 printed in Oslo, Sweden in 1948.

As you see it is an old book and not everything was clear back then. If you have better source please suggest.

#9

The major combatants certainly don’t seem to have thought much of the Italians. In any case I believe Italian production of armaments was below Japan’s.

#10

My instinct is to group all the Commonwealth/Empire countries in the same pot. They were (with the exception of one Canadian brigade trained along US lines for use against Japan towards the end of the war) equipped and trained homogeneously, part of a unified military chain of command and entered and left the war as one. The air forces in particular were very heavily integrated - RAF Bomber Command was actually very heavily Canadian, but intermingled to the extent that it was not uncommon to have three or more nationalities on a single aircraft.
Thus, my opinion is that seperating them out isn’t practical. However, we really need the opinion of some real life Australians/Canadians/Indians here (the Indian army was something like three million strong - all volunteers).

Tough one - I would say a quarter to a third of the Battle of the Atlantic would be attributable to the Canadians.

Sounds pretty much exactly right to me.

#11

The question is, did the commonwealth countries perceived themself as one with GB? Do they now? And you are right: do we add up the Indians to GB or to the other nations?

I can not be sure, but I doubt it. Though they intered the War almost simutaniously. Would be nice to find out more from the locals.

In my opinion we should keep them separate. That is what I did in my estimates.

#12

My understanding is that the “White” dominions - with the exception of South Africa - very much regarded the UK as part of the family. No longer quite the mother country, as their own sense of nationhood had grown up in the previous world war (at Gallipoli for the ANZACs, Vimy Ridge for the Canadians), but Britain certainly had an unequalled place in their national conciousness.

#13

I think this is the correct approach for the purposes of this thread. As you say, we all came in together and went out together, and had the same enemies in a common purpose.

It is also the most manageable approach. It would be too difficult to separate out the contribution of dominion personnel who served in various British forces, notably RAF and RN. The problem would be compounded by trying to deal with elements where there were combined but unequal British and Commonwealth national forces, such as in North Africa and Malaya, and campaigns where there were no British national forces but substantial Australian forces such as Papua-New Guinea, Borneo, and Balikpapan.

There is another and more compelling reason for this approach. The USSR was not, strictly, a country but a federation or commonwealth of independent republics, which pretty much covered the same elements as the old Russian Empire. Because of the centralised control of the USSR’s forces and resources, it would be difficult to separate out the contribution of each republic. If we’re comparing like with like, the British Commonwealth / Empire contribution should also be regarded as a single contribution.

#14

Rising Sun*, do say that the Commonwealth economies were melted together just like the Soviet republics?

Do you agree that we add “white” commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) into “UK”, whereas India, Crown Colonies and South Africa will belong to “Others”?
It is OK with me.

Just be prepared to take qualified guess about thier respective input.

#15

[quote="“pdf27"”]

My understanding is that the “White” dominions - with the exception of South Africa - very much regarded the UK as part of the family. No longer quite the mother country, as their own sense of nationhood had grown up in the previous world war (at Gallipoli for the ANZACs, Vimy Ridge for the Canadians), but Britain certainly had an unequalled place in their national conciousness.[/quote]

For exactly the same reasons I’d put ZA in that group - Delville Wood anyone ?

#16

I will post later today the input with the modifications we discussed (UK = GB+canada+ANZAC; Others = SouthAfrica + India + Brasil + all_other_small_ones).

Right? Any comments? Corrections?

#17

No.

I have no idea of the details of the economic arrangements and mutual trade of any of them, British Commonwealth or Soviet.

My suggestion was based on the idea that, unlike the US (ignoring the Philippines and some other possessions which - apart from Hawaii as a base - didn‘t contribute much to victory), Britain and Russia each stood at the head of a much larger group of states, republics, dominions, colonies or whatever which were under their control or owed them some form of allegiance, without which their industrial and military power would have been greatly reduced.

Do you agree that we add “white” commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) into “UK”, whereas India, Crown Colonies and South Africa will belong to “Others”?

I think that, for consistency, India and the Crown Colonies should be included as “UK”. The UK deployed significant forces to defend India and some colonies, most notably Malaya in 1941 (to which Australia committed about one quarter its overseas land forces at the time), from which the UK derived significant resources. While nothing much happened in India as a front, it was still a very important base for land and air operations and held a very large number of British (and some other Allied) troops against Japan.

South Africa isn’t an issue I know enough about to express any view, apart from the fact that it contributed forces to the “UK” effort which suggests that it should be included as “UK”.

#18

Sorta-kinda. They were undoubtedly part of the British war effort, but were always a little bit less keen than the rest. I was trying to emphasise this, rather than saying that they should be regarded as a seperate belligerent - something I do not think they justify. Shades of the Boer war I guess…

#19

WWII Australian forces overseas were always those of an independent nation, despite some being titled “2nd Australian Imperial Force” = 2nd AIF(1st AIF was WWI) (“Imperial” = British Empire) and serving under British and American command in various theatres.

There are some interesting connections between Australia and the USSR which affected Australia’s participation in WWII, due to significant communist influence in trade unions in Australia, and Australia’s participation as part of “GB” before Barbarossa.

There was widespread but by no means unanimous support in Australia for the war against the Nazis 1939-41, due in part to groups such as Irish Catholic and communist opponents of the war as, for different reasons in the minds of both opposing groups, they saw it as a British imperial and capitalist war in which Australia should not participate. A significant shift occurred in Australia after Barbarossa when the communist opponents of the war, who were strong in the trade unions which supported the Labor national government, dumped their support for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and, essentially under direction from or support for Moscow, switched to support fighting the Nazis. This had a useful impact in various war-related areas dominated by more or less communist trade unions, notably on the waterfront where ships could be loaded and handled much more quickly.

Up to late 1941 when Japan attacked, it was a distant war which didn’t directly threaten Australia’s mainland. From early 1942 when it became apparent to the Australian government and its military advisers, although perhaps not to the general public, that Britain could not and would not be able to discharge its obligations under the long-standing imperial defence policies based on Singapore and a British fleet coming to Australia‘s defence, Australia’s government certainly did not see Australia as entirely ‘one with GB’. To the contrary, Australia’s government switched its hopes for salvation from Japan’s advance, as distinct from its people’s’ dominant allegiance to Britain, to America in a famous but often misinterpreted statement by the Australian Prime Minister, John Curtin,

Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.

Most historians ignore the fact that this statement was quite consistent with the US / UK agreement that the US would be responsible for fighting Japan in the Pacific. They do not quote the immediately preceding statement which puts it in context:

The Australian Government, therefore, regards the Pacific struggle as primarily one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the direction of the democracies’ fighting plan.

Contrary to the usual historians’ assertion that it was a general repudiation of Australia’s relationship with Britain, Curtin’s statement was a comment about the imminent realities of the war in the Pacific and who could fight it, being Australia and the US.

There is another dimension to this statement which fails to put it in the context relevant to this thread that Australia, along with the other non-USSR Allies, also expected the USSR to fight Japan in pursuit of Allied objectives, which the USSR never did until it had achieved its own objectives against the Nazis.

Now with equal realism, we take the view that, while the determination of military policy is the Soviet’s business, we should be able to look forward with reason to aid from Russia against Japan.

The full article is here http://john.curtin.edu.au/pmportal/text/00468.html

These statements, and others in this oft-quoted but frequently misunderstood or misrepresented New Year article for 1942, are to some extent taken out of context and must be understood in the wider context that Australia was afraid that it had been or was about to be abandoned by the US and UK (which both powers certainly considered doing) as irrelevant to their main conflict with Germany. The Australian fears were well founded, although it was not until well into 1942 that Australia learned by accident that the US and UK had fastened on the ‘Germany First’ policy which justified its concerns.

#20

Hello!

Sorry for the delay, I was not feeling well these days… tooth pain… Now I am back.

Here is the intermediate result. I tried to take into account the comments I received from you. If you have any comments regarding certain parameters please state your consern and suggest the value and provide the source of your information.
For me a bit open question is the Japanese losses from Chinese forces. Any ideas?

Comment:
UK in this exercise consist of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The “Other” part consist of all the Allied countries except USA, USSR and UK. F.ex. France, India, Greece, ect.
Remaining uncertainties:
[ul]
[li]the losses inflicted to Japanees in China
[/li][li]The distribution of Italian losses may need refinement
[/li][/ul]

[u]Importance of Destruction                              [/u]
        Germany	Italy	Japan
        70%	10%	20%

[u]Importance of the Force type Destruction                     [/u]
        Ground   Air     Fleet
Germany 0,60    0,26    0,14
Japan   0,20    0,30    0,50
Italy   0,34    0,33    0,33

[u]Germany: share of forces destroyed per Allied country        [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,70	0,20	0,05	0,05
Air	0,30	0,22	0,40	0,08
Fleet	0,05	0,20	0,70	0,05

[u]Italy: share of forces destroyed per Allied country          [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,15	0,10	0,70	0,05
Air	0,05	0,25	0,68	0,02
Fleet	0,05	0,10	0,80	0,05

[u]Japan: share of forces destroyed per Allied country          [/u]
	USSR	USA	UK	Other
Ground	0,09	0,35	0,45	0,11
Air	0,01	0,60	0,37	0,02
Fleet	0,01	0,70	0,26	0,03

[b][u]Final Result: the losses inflicted to the Axis powers       [/u]
        USSR	USA	UK	Other
        36,7%	27,9%	30,1%	5,3%
[/b]

image7.gif