Atomic Bombing of Japan

[Mikey]

No-one's disputing that the Soviets could produce shitloads of stuff. The point, which you're either ignoring or failing to understand, is that the US was capable of producing vastly more stuff.

So what? I never said anything about the U.S. having an inferior capacity to the Soviets; I said that the USSR had a large industrial capacity.

They obviously did, as Joe 4 proves. They simply weren't capable of doing so in the middle of the world's worst war.

Well thanks, dipshit. Since the whole discussion centered upon what was done and/or possible during the war, I don't think it was necessary to add such an addendum to every sentence.

Fixed for accuracy.

"Changed to agree with your point" =/= accuracy. What's been proven is that the USSR didn't have the technological base to manufacture an A-bomb, not that thy didn't have the manufacturing infrastructure.

[Captain Seafort]

So what? I never said anything about the U.S. having an inferior capacity to the Soviets; I said that the USSR had a large industrial capacity.

"Changed to agree with your point" =/= accuracy. What's been proven is that the USSR didn't have the technological base to manufacture an A-bomb, not that thy didn't have the manufacturing infrastructure.

The debate is over the Soviet ability to produce an A-bomb. They were unable to do so during the war. The US could and did. Ergo, Soviet industry was deficient. This entire strand of the debate goes back to your assertion that:

Industrial capacity wasn't the telling factor at all. The CCCP had us matched or even beat in that regard.

Which, as has been amply demonstrated, is bullshit.

[Mikey]

Which, as has been amply demonstrated, is bullshit.

It hasn't, actually, but it has been established that the U.S. industrial capacity in certain arenas exceeded that of the USSR.

Industrial capacity wasn't the telling factor at all.

This part, which you just repeated, hasn't been answered at all save for your online version of sticking your fingers in your ears. It's also the meat of the matter.

The debate is over the Soviet ability to produce an A-bomb. They were unable to do so during the war. The US could and did. Ergo, Soviet industry was deficient.

Your logic (forgive me for calling it thusly) is, well, illogical. The Soviets were unable to produce an A-bomb during the war. That fact doesn't in any way speak to which aspect of the wartime Soviet society was deficient. To assume otherwise is the very opposite of the factual, critical thinking which you so often espouse.

[McAvoy]

Just to say something: I don't see anything what Mikey said that says that the Soviets build a A-Bomb during a massive war like the US did.

GKs numbers for ships is more impressive when you include ships that were being built but not completed. Also the support ships like the Liberty ships. Also not included were the CVEs and CVLs. Not to mention the rebuilds of various ships like BBs, CVs and the CAs.

The US obviously did not build the best or outbuild in everything. But the US did practically did win the war by sheer numbers

[Deepcrush]

GKs numbers for ships is more impressive when you include ships that were being built but not completed. Also the support ships like the Liberty ships. Also not included were the CVEs and CVLs. Not to mention the rebuilds of various ships like BBs, CVs and the CAs.

The US obviously did not build the best or outbuild in everything. But the US did practically did win the war by sheer numbers

Its not that the US out built in any one thing, its that they out built in just about everything (short of subs/Germany and tanks/USSR) that makes the difference. Added to this is the materials supplied in the field. War isn't just measured by the numbers of ships and guns but also in ammunition and food and spare parts. In this area, the US was simply untouchable... Not just in that no one could keep up with the US but also that no one could reach the US to hinder the production.

On top of the "numbers", the US also produced a lot of high quality materials to support the war. Combat vehicles (minus tanks), firearms (such as M1 Garande, Thompson SMG, B.A.R.), aircraft (P51/F6F/F4F/F4U) and lastly in its carriers.

In the end it was the combination of superior numbers, quality and ability of the US that carried the war.

[McAvoy]

Not to mention supply ships and escorts. CVEs as well.

I remember a few times I have read where the US industrial might was 49% of the worlds total where as Japan was only 2%. Russia, Germany and Britain were about roughly even with each other. France was slightly behind and Italy was half that. One of thOse books I believe was Victory at Sea.

The other statistic was US soliders had I think but not sure 2 tons of supplies backing him up varying from ammo to meds to food. Where the Japanese solider had a few pounds.

[Deepcrush]

Not to mention supply ships and escorts. CVEs as well.

I mentioned carriers and supply.

I remember a few times I have read where the US industrial might was 49% of the worlds total where as Japan was only 2%. Russia, Germany and Britain were about roughly even with each other. France was slightly behind and Italy was half that. One of thOse books I believe was Victory at Sea.

I've heard that the US took up roughly half of the worlds production at that time, so I would put faith in that number.

The other statistic was US soliders had I think but not sure 2 tons of supplies backing him up varying from ammo to meds to food. Where the Japanese solider had a few pounds.

It was a war wide total. By the end of the war it was estimated that the average US serviceman had two tons of personal material reserved for him. In contrast the average IJA serviceman had about eighty pounds reserved. This number however is more important in pointing out the end war result, not so much the true production ability of the two countries.

[Captain Seafort]

Its not that the US out built in any one thing, its that they out built in just about everything (short of subs/Germany and tanks/USSR) that makes the difference.

Plus there's the fact that it's obvious that they could have easily outbuilt both of them in those departments had they chosen to. Set up the production lines differently (not an easy or quick job, but doable) and the guns and armour of all those warships and the engines of the aircraft could be transferred to tank and SPG production. Likewise, the escorts could be replaced by submarines, especially as US escorts used submarine drive trains to ease production.

[Deepcrush]

The problem for the US at the time is we lacked a reliable torpedo and effective MBT.

[Captain Seafort]

You had an effective tank - the Sherman. It was distinctly inferior to the Panther or T-34, but it was present in sufficient quantity to get the job done, and could have been produced in substantially greater quantities had it been necessary. Although I do wonder why you didn't start making Fireflies of your own. Don't forget that the main subject of the discussion is one of industrial capacity, not the technical merits of specific weapons.

[Deepcrush]

I was just adding to my earlier statement on the two fields in which the US didn't lead production in. The US (by 1944) preferred using air power to knock out enemy tanks, not tank v tank. Sub use in the Atlantic was limited and in the pacific was crossed at best. Makes sense these areas were over looked in favor of other options.

[Deepcrush]

On a side note, the Sherman was a horrible tank.

[Captain Seafort]

Sub use in the Atlantic was limited and in the pacific was crossed at best.

The Battle of the Pacific doesn't get anything like the recognition it should get - against a less loony enemy it could have won the war on its own.

On a side note, the Sherman was a horrible tank.

It got the job done though.

[Graham Kennedy]

Funny that the Allies won the tank war by building huge numbers of "just about adequate" tanks, and took the lesson from it that they should build super high quality tanks to overcome the greater numbers of Soviet models.

Not that it wasn't the right tactic, just seems ironic after WWII.

[Captain Seafort]

Funny that the Allies won the tank war by building huge numbers of "just about adequate" tanks, and took the lesson from it that they should build super high quality tanks to overcome the greater numbers of Soviet models.

We didn't. The early Cold War tanks, despite being built specifically to leapfrog the Germans (one of the design requirements for the Cent, for example, was to be 88-proof) were inferior to their Soviet equivalents. It was only in the later Cold War that Chobham armour gave the Chieftain and later models superiority. This was partially because the Russians intended the GSFG to do real fighting. NATO never intended CENTAG to act as much more than a nuclear tripwire.