The total contributions surprise me somewhat, but the raw data seems to be accurate and the methodology appears to be valid so they’re probably right. The rating of the UK ahead of the US in particular is stunning - I had expected it to be something of a distant third. Still, there are other stages left to go which may redress this.
This is turning out to be a more interesting exercise than I expected.
Hope your tooth is better. One of the worst kinds of pain.
The China question occurred to me, but I have no idea what the figure might be. I’ve seen figures from about 200,000 to close to ten times that figure for China. I don’t know whether they are just for Japanese killed by Chinese or including those killed by other forces, including USSR and US. Then there’s the problem of Burma where the Nationalists also fought.
Unless someone can come up with a fairly reliable figure, I think they stay in ‘other’. Even if they come out of ‘other’ it’s not going to make any difference to the main players.
The UK - US figures aren’t all that surprising when we remember that we’re including the dominions and colonies in the UK and that they were involved for longer and in more theatres than the US. In one sense the UK contribution reflects the power and resources of the British Empire just before it contracted its terminal illness.
This is turning out to be a more interesting exercise than I expected.
Definitely.
Of course my dear friend! :mrgreen: That is why I did not post the result until you more or less agreed on the parameter values. Because if I did it would have affected your judgment.
I think UK overtook USA because it was from the beginning of the war involved in actions. But if you look at money spend on war USA will overrun everyone, but it will be point of view number 2. Lets finish with this one first, shell we?
If you want me explain how it is calculated let me know.
Though the US was the most powerful combatant in the war in some areas it suffered far lower casualties than some of the other combatants which may indicate its contribution was not in proportion to its strength.
I still don’t see why Germany rates so highly. Japan even held out longer than Germany did. If someone claimed that for the axis destruction of the US counted for 90 % I suspect people would disagree.
Based on GDP the US was apparently more than 3 times stronger than the USSR yet people do not dismiss the USSR as irrelevant because its output was so much less.
If you want to object the weight of Germany in the total Axis strength, then please open a new thread, propose a number and defend it. I will be glad to participate in the discussion. In this scenario the weight is by the amount of resources invested in the war - a very reasonable way to do it.
Japan did not hold longer. Firstly because Germany was longer in the war (68 months) than Japan (45 months). Secondly, and most importantly because Allied had policy: “Germany - first”.
If someone claimed that for the axis destruction of the US counted for 90 % I suspect people would disagree.
I do not quite get your point here… Where is that 90% comes from? What does it have to do with our numbers?
Based on GDP the US was apparently more than 3 times stronger than the USSR yet people do not dismiss the USSR as irrelevant because its output was so much less.
Yes, the USA was economicaly 3 times stronger than USSR. USA invested into war more money than all of the other Allies combined. But it is NOT what we are talking about in this thread. This thread is about losses inflicted to Axis.
The economical point of view (i.e. #2) I will open as soon as we get some sort of conformation that the result are reasonable within the frame of this thread.
Good work mate
Our british friends could be calmed 
Just not sure about americans 
Cheers.
Andrey, a Russian member of another forum ( Armchair General ) suggested the following.
He asked me to post it here on his behalf.
[u]Importance of Destruction[/u]
Germany Italy Japan
65% 5% 30%
[u]Importance of the Force type Destruction[/u]
Ground Air Fleet
Germany 0,60 0,30 0,10
Japan 0,30 0,20 0,50
Italy 0,40 0,15 0,45
[u]Germany: share of forces destroyed per Allied country[/u]
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,73 0,10 0,15 0,02 (Yugoslavia)
Air 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,00
Fleet 0,05 0,20 0,75 0,00
[u]Italy: share of forces destroyed per Allied country[/u]
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,30 0,15 0,50 0,05 (Greece, Yugoslavia)
Air 0,00 0,30 0,70 0,00
Fleet 0,00 0,10 0,90 0,00
[u]Japan: share of forces destroyed per Allied country[/u] Comments:Navy Air Units are considered a part of “Fleet”
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,15 0,30 0,40 0,15 (China)
Air 0,00 0,70 0,30 0,00
Fleet 0,00 0,90 0,10 0,00
[b][u]Final Result: the losses inflicted to the Axis powers [/u]
USSR USA UK Other
40,5% 31,2% 26,1% 2,2%[/b]
I think there is an unstated bias in the ‘Importance of Destruction’ allocation as it depends upon one’s national standpoint. For Australians (well, this one at least) Japan rates about 90%, Germany 10% and Italy 0% on the basis of the threats posed to our nation by those nations. For Britons, I’d expect it’s about 90% Germany, 5% Japan (being threat to imperial interests as distinct from homeland), and 5% Italy. For French people, I’d guess at Germany 100%. These biases inevitably influence our assessments of the importance of destruction, even allowing for attempts to try to view the Axis exercise as some sort of threat to the world at large and the importance of destroying its component forces.
I’m not sure about the allocations for Japanese air forces destroyed in either of the most recent tables posted.
I suspect that the USA was by far the main destroyer of Japanese air forces, especially carrier borne forces which were the most strategically important because of their ability to destroy US naval forces.
For example, America single-handedly destroyed most of Japan’s experienced carrier pilots in the early part of WWII. This was of much more value than Chennault’s activities in China, other Allies’ activities elsewhere, or the destruction of higher numbers of lesser Japanese pilots later in the war when they were easier to destroy and posed much less of a threat than earlier in the war. With the possible exception of the Kamikaze pilots whose creation demonstrated just how bad the remaining pilots were because they couldn’t be relied upon to bomb as well as the earlier experienced ones.
Remember this thread does not try to explain the WHOLE of the aspects of the “biggest contributor”. Only the part describet in the name of the thread.
That is the main point to elliminate the bias aproach. We vew the Victory as a common victory of all of the Allies together. We do the same with the Axis, which had to be crushed together (though Germany was the strongest and the most capable of the all).
Do there is bias unless one introduces it on purpose. That is also the reason I chose to assign importance to the Axis powers based on something that does not depend on my or your personal point of view.
- I’m not sure about the allocations for Japanese air forces destroyed in either of the most recent tables posted.
I suspect that the USA was by far the main destroyer of Japanese air forces, especially carrier borne forces which were the most strategically important because of their ability to destroy US naval forces.
We have now assigned 60% to the USA’s share of Japanese airforce. That is “the main destroyer” to me. But you are very welcome to propose a new number and back it up with references.
- While this an interesting exercise, I still come back to the essential problem that there is no qualitative component in or deduction available from it.
Again, this one does not (and can not) explain everuthing. That is why it is mostly about quantitative matters. These are also the the ones that are least dependant on the pesonal prefferences of me and you.
I will open a new thread in few days about the military expences of the Allied powers (that will be the view #2).
Japan was at war longer than Germany. The Japanese were heavily engaged in China before Germany attacked Poland.
It has to be said I’m highly dubious about his figures. Some of the numbers just don’t ring true. The contribution of Russia to destroying the Luftwaffe seems to be rather overstated, while that of France in summer 1940 has been completely ignored. They were overrun fast, but the Germans took substantial casualties in doing so. More relevantly, they inflicted substantially higher casualties on the Italians in the process than the Soviets did throughout the war - yet he has the Soviet contribution to the destruction of Italian ground forces being six times that of the other minor powers (including the French) put together.
On the other hand, his figures for Japan do look pretty plausible.
All in all, I get the feeling that he’s allowing his experience of history - which as a Russian will of course be heavily coloured by Russian experiences in WW2 - to cloud his judgement. That’s something we are all prone to, myself included.
Pdf27,
Andrey just presented his input and asked me to post it here (he had problems registering in here). That is what I did. You may have noticed that I have not changed our final results because of his input. Andrey said him self, that he was particulary interested in the Pacific theater of war.
Yesterday I opened a thread on their forum, where Andrey and others will have opportunity to discuss this topic. Lets see if they will completely blow our numbers!
No problem. I’m not having a go, but rather highlighting some of the more questionable numbers for debate/scrutiny.
Guys,
I have heard on an other forum that we undemine the USA impact on the Japanese navy and blow up the UK impact on it.
What is your comment? HAve UK casued 26% of the Japanese navy damages?
Unlikely. There were occasions when we contributed a large fraction of the naval effort against the Japanese, notably when Somerville was lurking in the Indian ocean acting as a “fleet in being” to tie the IJN down without having the strength to get into a fight. The naval effort in the Pacific - and in this context Marines really do have to be counted as part of the naval effort - was overwhelmingly American.
So should I adjust the number and recalculate? What value should I take?
These gross figures from the US Strategic Bombing Survey may help calculate the percentage of shipping sunk by the US on a tonnage basis, although not by numbers and type of ship.
Unfortunately there is no distinction between the nationality of the submarines and surface ships, so we don’t know what proportion were US. I take it that references to “Navy”, “Army” and “Marine” are to those US forces.
Japan began the war with 381 warships aggregating approximately 1,271,000 tons. An additional 816 combat ships totaling 1,048,000 tons were constructed during the war. Five hundred and forty-nine ships of all types and sizes, totaling 1,744,000 tons were sunk. Approximately 1,300,000 tons of Japanese warships in the carrier, battleship, cruiser and destroyer categories were included in the aggregate tonnage sunk. Of this total roughly 625,000 tons were sunk by Navy and Marine aircraft, 375,000 tons by submarines, 183,000 tons by surface vessels, 55,000 tons by Army aircraft, and 65,000 tons by various agents. Only 196,000 tons in these categories remained afloat at the end of the war. The tonnage sunk by surface ships was principally in night actions. A shortage of Japanese destroyers after 1943 and inadequate Japanese air antisubmarine measures contributed to the successes of United States submarines against the Japanese fleet
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/PTO-Summary.html at p.11
Japan entered the war with some 6,000,000 tons of merchant shipping of over 500 tons gross weight. During the war an additional 4,100,000 tons were constructed, captured or requisitioned. Sufficient information was secured by the Survey in Japan concerning this 10,100,000 tons to tabulate ship by ship, (a) the name end tonnage, (b>) the date, location; and agent of sinking or damage, and (c) the present condition and location of such ships as survived. The sources from which evidence was obtained were in some respects conflicting. Where possible these conflicts have been resolved. The Joint Army and Navy Assessment Committee has tentatively arrived at similar results and is continuing its efforts further to refine the evidence. The Survey believes that the figures included in the following breakdown will not differ significantly from the final evaluation of the Joint Army and Navy Assessment Committee.
Eight million nine hundred thousand tons of this shipping were sunk or so seriously damaged as to be out of action at the end of the war. Fifty-four and seven-tenths percent of this total was attributable to submarines, 16.3 percent to carrier based planes, 10.2 percent to Army land-based planes and 4.3 percent to Navy and Marine land-based planes, 9.3 percent to mines (largely dropped by B-29s), less than 1 percent to surface gunfire, and the balance of 4 percent to marine accidents.
Due to their ability to penetrate deeply into enemy-controlled waters, submarines accounted for approximately 60 percent of sinkings up until the final months of the war. During 1941, carrier task forces made deep sweeps which accounted for large numbers of ships. After April, 1945, when Japanese shipping was restricted to the Korean and Manchurian runs and to shallow inland waters, mines dropped by B-29s in Japanese harbors and inland waterways accounted for 50 percent of all ships sunk or damaged. In isolating areas of combat from ship-borne reinforcements land-based aircraft also sank large numbers of barges and vessels smaller than 500 tons gross weight, not included in the tabulation prepared by the Survey.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/PTO-Summary.html at p.11
Fianlly made time to read this version of Egorkas analysis. Seems a bit better than the thread he started on the Armchair General Forum. Fewer inmature posts here. Am disappointed to see this discussion stps in April and will be searching for relted items elswhere.