usage of womans in combat/factory - more political options :)

[1alexey]

Overall Soviet industrial efficiency is rather exaggerated. Soviet workers worked huge amount of hours, and usage of child labor war common.

SU also never managed to even come close to USA`s production, especially in terms of planes and trucks, not to mention American fleet.

SU, before the start of war, had 168 millions population. Germany had ~70 millions. And in terms of military appliances, Germany was outproduced by a factor of less than 1.5.

Then, SU imported by lend-lease more than 400,000 of trucks&Jeeps, which is more than double of what they produced domestically.

It was efficient, but fairly close to that of Germany or GB, not USA.

 

[Opanashc]

SU also never managed to even come close to USA`s production, especially in terms of planes and trucks, not to mention American fleet.

In 1940, SU produced ~18.5 million tonnes of steel. USA produced ~60 million tonnes. In 1942, SU produced ~8.5 million tonnes of steel.
In 1913, Russian Empire produced ~4.2 million tonnes of steel, to USA's ~30 million.
All that is quantity. Efficiency is QUALITY. As in, amount of product per worker involved. USA had the best one, due to isolation from conflict by 2 oceans. I would like to see how USA would have done, with panzers rolling up to Mississippi River from the East coast.

 

[1alexey]

In 1940, SU produced ~18.5 million tonnes of steel. USA produced ~60 million tonnes. In 1942, SU produced ~8.5 million tonnes of steel.
In 1913, Russian Empire produced ~4.2 million tonnes of steel, to USA's ~30 million.
All that is quantity. Efficiency is QUALITY. As in, amount of product per worker involved. USA had the best one, due to isolation from conflict by 2 oceans. I would like to see how USA would have done, with panzers rolling up to Mississippi River from the East coast.

Considering SU had 40+ millions of people more (and lost around 27 by biggest estimate), I would say it is more than fair comparison of economic efficiency, in fact slightly Soviet tilted, considering Americans actually fielded a fleet, army, airforce, and waged war ocean away.

We discuss efficiency per worker, do we not? It seems pretty fair to say that SU was still notably behind USA, being roughly tied with Germany and GB, is it not?

I`m rather uncertain if USA had to draft 16-18 aged to industry as SU did in 1941, so overall, Soviet labor pool was bigger than American one, at any point.

 

[Opanashc]

Considering SU had 40+ millions of people more (and lost around 27 by biggest estimate), I would say it is more than fair comparison of economic efficiency, in fact slightly Soviet tilted, considering Americans actually fielded a fleet, army, airforce, and waged war ocean away.
We discuss efficiency per worker, do we not? It seems pretty fair to say that SU was still notably behind USA, being roughly tied with Germany and GB, is it not?
I`m rather uncertain if USA had to draft 16-18 aged to industry as SU did in 1941, so overall, Soviet labor pool was bigger than American one, at any point.

Are you still not getting it? To produce steel (and any other product) you need to build a factory (or a workshop) first. To put it in game terms, to produce units, you need to have IC. If your IC is 1/10th of another country's, then it does not matter if your IC efficiency is twice as good - you will still produce only 1/5 of the bigger country's.
Up till WW2, USA invested in its industry a lot more than SU did. Hence USA had a bigger industry base. In game terms, in some 1800's, USA was building IC, while Russia was building supplies and infantry. Thus, even though both had equal amount of IC in 18XX, by 1914, USA had 10 times the IC of Russia.
In 1940, USSR had urban population of 60 million, while USA had 74 million. Workers live in cities, not farms. By YOUR logic, in 1940, China and India should have had much bigger industries than USA, because they had three times the population. In 1942, out of ~190 million people living in USSR, ~88 million lived in occupied territories. Thus, in 1942-43, Washington had more people at its disposal, than Moscow. Do you understand?

 

[NikephorosSonar]

I would like to see how USA would have done, with panzers rolling up to Mississippi River from the East coast.

What does this bizarre and irrelevant counter-factual have anything to do with anything?

"It wasn't equal but that doesn't matter because circumstances" does what to change that it wasn't equal?

 

[1alexey]

Are you still not getting it? To produce steel (and any other product) you need to build a factory (or a workshop) first. To put it in game terms, to produce units, you need to have IC. If your IC is 1/10th of another country's, then it does not matter if your IC efficiency is twice as good - you will still produce only 1/5 of the bigger country's.
Up till WW2, USA invested in its industry a lot more than SU did. Hence USA had a bigger industry base. In game terms, in some 1800's, USA was building IC, while Russia was building supplies and infantry. Thus, even though both had equal amount of IC in 18XX, by 1914, USA had 10 times the IC of Russia.

USA could only afford larger industry base if it`s agriculture, logistic and resource extraction were more efficient.
Industrial base is not an exponential function that just grows and grows as long as country invests into it.

In 1940, USSR had urban population of 60 million, while USA had 74 million. Workers live in cities, not farms. By YOUR logic, in 1940, China and India should have had much bigger industries than USA, because they had three times the population. In 1942, out of ~190 million people living in USSR, ~88 million lived in occupied territories. Thus, in 1942-43, Washington had more people at its disposal, than Moscow. Do you understand?

So, to support 74 millions of urban population, USA needed 46 millions of rural population. To support 60 million urban population, USSR needed 100 millions or rurals.
By my logic, USA`s economy is far more efficient, per worker.

The numbers on occupied territories in 1942 is bad comparison. First, by official sources, SU evacuated more than 10 millions only in 1941, and plenty of factories. Second, USSR quickly recaptured large amount of land in 1943.

Also, even Soviet official sources do claim that USSR never reached productivity level of USA, claiming that they did manage to beat UK, which, is somewhat questionable.

"It wasn't equal but that doesn't matter because circumstances" does what to change that it wasn't equal?

Exactly.

 

[Opanashc]

Where did I state, that USSR had as efficient economy as USA during WW2? Also, USSR has a different climate than USA - hence some of the difference in agriculture. It matters little, how efficient your workforce is, if the farm season is 2 month shorter.

 

[Daelyn75]

Where did I state, that USSR had as efficient economy as USA during WW2? Also, USSR has a different climate than USA - hence some of the difference in agriculture. It matters little, how efficient your workforce is, if the farm season is 2 month shorter.

Shouldn't that free up more workers then?

 

[Opanashc]

Shouldn't that free up more workers then?

No, on the contrary - more workers are required. The same amount of work per acre has to be done in less time.

 

[Daelyn75]

No, on the contrary - more workers are required. The same amount of work per acre has to be done in less time.

But there should be two months more free time afterwards.

 

[Gamer_1745]

Also, mechanization requires fuel. Fuel, that Germany did not have.

I keep seeing this posted. No, farm mechanization did not need petrol fuel. Trucks & tractors were converted to run on wood.
Link

Event image from TRE mod.

 

[Opanashc]

But there should be two months more free time afterwards.

You are a automobile mechanic. Now, your shop is closed for 2 month - go write some code for upcoming Windows 11.
Same with farmers in USSR of the time.

 

[Caesar15]

I keep seeing this posted. No, farm mechanization did not need petrol fuel. Trucks & tractors were converted to run on wood.
Link

Event image from TRE mod.

Woh. Wood? Why don't we use that now?

 

[Demonsul]

Woh. Wood? Why don't we use that now?

Because it was a crapshoot. The wood-gas vehicles were not nearly as efficient as petrol-driven ones.

 

[NikephorosSonar]

Woh. Wood? Why don't we use that now?

I'm sure this article explains it better than I could from my very limited knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas_generator

 

[Gamer_1745]

If you read up on it, generally engines that run off wood gas are not very powerful. They did use them to power buses at the time and on some step roads the passengers would get off to lighten the load. It works, just not as well as petrol gas engines. I have photos (somewhere) of some German military trucks powered by wood gas.

Wartime Farm is a very good BBC show on the home front during WWII Link

 

[Caesar15]

Thanks. Oh, well that makes sense. If only it was efficient.

 

[Opanashc]

Thanks. Oh, well that makes sense. If only it was efficient.

If only all humans were law-abiding and friendly people...

 

[Secret Master]

If only all humans were law-abiding and friendly people...

Which reminds me, I'm selling my new patented Mr. Fusion generators for cars, trucks, and homes. For the low, low price of $1,400,475.74 you can recycle all your garbage and turn it into 12 gigawatts of power daily. It comes with lifetime warranty.

 

[Daelyn75]

Which reminds me, I'm selling my new patented Mr. Fusion generators for cars, trucks, and homes. For the low, low price of $1,400,475.74 you can recycle all your garbage and turn it into 12 gigawatts of power daily. It comes with lifetime warranty.

You do realize if you had working fusion generators that you could in fact hold out for billions each, not millions.