Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

Axis industry, agriculture & coordination are not a joke before & during WWII

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Ship armour in Pinguin?

    Marblehead was and remained in the thick of Pacific , in combat for a while. If they were so wise, why not keep her in the Atlantic before the war, or at least safe in PH, instead of in the hottest spot in world for air attack (from planes in Formosa and carrier planes)? They were extremely lucky not to lose her and Boise, like they did almost all the other ships of the weak fleet.
    1. He's speaking of the Cornwall's armour, not Pinguin's lack thereof.
    2. Ships are where they are. We didn't know we were going to be attacked at Pearl Harbor. Ships don't just magically appear when and where you need them or don't want them.
    3. Before PH, the Atlantic seemed as hostile as the Pacific.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Draco View Post
      Ship armour in Pinguin?
      None. The 5.9" / 15cm guns did have splinter shields...

      Marblehead was and remained in the thick of Pacific , in combat for a while. If they were so wise, why not keep her in the Atlantic before the war, or at least safe in PH, instead of in the hottest spot in world for air attack (from planes in Formosa and carrier planes)? They were extremely lucky not to lose her and Boise, like they did almost all the other ships of the weak fleet.
      Because prior to the US entry into the war, there was no need for cruisers on distant stations to protect shipping from surface raiders. US flagged vessels were neutral at that point.
      Aside from that only 3 of that class were still in the Pacific, the other 7 already were in the Atlantic. Detroit and Richmond both transferred to the Atlantic shortly after Pearl Harbor. Marblehead eventually joined them.

      Comment


      • #63
        Don't feed the trol : his hunger is insatiable .

        Comment


        • #64
          A supplement to the tales from Morelia:

          In 1940 Britain had 640000 horses and 66000 tractors : 10/1

          In 1940 US had 15 million horses and 1.445000 tractots : 10/1; on the continent the situation was even worse :

          In 1950 Belgium had 187000 horses and 8000 tractors :23 to 1.

          There was before WWII no need and no possibility for more tractors than existed in the OTL.

          Of course, in Morelia one will reply that more tractors will result in a bigger agriculture production,something which will reult in a lot of laughing i a lot of farms .
          Last edited by ljadw; 24 May 15, 15:31.

          Comment


          • #65
            In the US horses were used for recreation, cattle ranches, transportation in remote areas, etc, and quite a few were wild in Colorado, New Mexico, etc,

            Have You seen what percentage of agricultural production in the US derived from horses and from tractors in 1940 and specially in 1943 and 1945, when demand for grain, etc, was unlimited.

            The fact that the US fed the allies, while producing huge amounts of materiel is in great part due to the abundance of tractors and trucks and mechanized farming. American tractors also upped Canada's, Argentina's and Brazil's production.

            It is quite easy to see that a farm horse fueled by grain, requiring considerable care and producing a hp for a few hours, wasting a lot of man-hr in slow work before becoming exhasuted is less productive than a tractor fueled by Diesel, synthetic fuel, gasoline, wood alcohol, etc, and producing over 25 hp 24-7 working the land much faster (allowing a man to work a much larger area) is more productive.

            87,000/8,000 is not 23
            Last edited by Draco; 24 May 15, 15:05.

            Comment


            • #66
              http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/far...s_plowing.html

              http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/far.../money_01.html

              But, German farm size remains the same meaning that mechanization only raises costs without really raising productivity. In the US farm size could increase greatly as there is much more land available for agriculture than in Germany so mechanization makes sense.

              The idea here is that it doesn't matter if it takes a couple hours to plow the field or a week to do it if there is slack in the system. Productivity increases only when the efficiency of the whole system increases. If you can plow much faster but the field size is the same and the plow is idle most of the time it might make life for the farmer easier but it doesn't change the bottom line output.

              You need better pesticides, fertilizers, larger farms, better harvesting methods, etc. When you improve the whole system it makes a difference. Making one small part of it better gains you little or nothing.
              Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 24 May 15, 15:49.

              Comment


              • #67
                187000/8000 = 23

                Comment


                • #68
                  Before the war,there was an underproduction in the US :farmers were paid to produce less .

                  It was the same in Britain .

                  The result was that the US and Britain could prduce more during the war.

                  In Germany more tractors would not increase the production : there were 3 million small farms with an average area of 6 ha;in the US there were 6 million big farms .

                  In Germany at the start of the war millions of farmers and horses were requisitioned by theWM : the only way to hold the production at a minimal level was to have more workers : POW and slaves .

                  The US had a farming population of some 10 million and 130 million ha arable land = 13 arable ha per farmer .

                  For Britain :1.4 million farming population;5.3 million ha arable land =3.8 per farmer


                  The SU :71 million farming population;224 million arable land = 3.1 ha per farmer

                  And Germany : farming population :9.4 million (not much less than the US) 19.4 million ha arable land = 2.1 ha per farmer .

                  For Germany,more tractors was a non sequitur .

                  The conclusion is inescapable :Germany could not support a larger agricultural population than that it had .An increase of the agricultural production was out of the question unless

                  a) there was a need for a bigger production

                  b) the structure of the German agriculture was changed fundamentally and this only happened after WWII ,not only for Germany but also for the other European countries .

                  Today there are only 360000 farms in Germany (only 12 % of the number of 1937) but this small number is capable to feed the same number of Germans as before the war : 80 million,and if needed,they can increase their production .

                  The claim that Hitler could change the structure of the German agriculture is only wishful-thinking .

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Is life so boring in Mexico ???
                    I mean there's a lotta chicas outside , the net is only virtual , no ??
                    That rug really tied the room together

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Draco View Post
                      (allowing a man to work a much larger area) is more productive.
                      A MUCH LARGER AREA WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN GERMANY .

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                        1. He's speaking of the Cornwall's armour, not Pinguin's lack thereof.
                        2. Ships are where they are. We didn't know we were going to be attacked at Pearl Harbor. Ships don't just magically appear when and where you need them or don't want them.
                        3. Before PH, the Atlantic seemed as hostile as the Pacific.
                        The USN knew that Japan was building up massive forces in Indochina to attack the SW Pacific and notified Hart of the imminent attack. Hart dispatched and saved his ships from rapid devastation by the initial air attack from Formosa and the huge IJN.
                        The incredible thing is that the USN did not deploy a large fleet to the critical DEI and expected to defend the PI without a real fleet. Any strategist knows that a island chain is completely untenable without a decent fleet. Similarly, the USN knew that Wake and Guam were untenable, yet they left urgently needed forces and 12 Wildcats (and no torpedo or dive bomebrs) there to rot in the vine.
                        Roosevelt stupidly deployed the core of the Pacific fleet from San Diego to PH, which wargames had twice proven to be vulnerable to a carrier raid. SO the fleet was not near the crucial, perfectly defensible DEI, but was vulnerable to attack.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Draco View Post
                          The USN knew that Japan was building up massive forces in Indochina to attack the SW Pacific and notified Hart of the imminent attack. Hart dispatched and saved his ships from rapid devastation by the initial air attack from Formosa and the huge IJN.
                          The incredible thing is that the USN did not deploy a large fleet to the critical DEI and expected to defend the PI without a real fleet. Any strategist knows that a island chain is completely untenable without a decent fleet. Similarly, the USN knew that Wake and Guam were untenable, yet they left urgently needed forces and 12 Wildcats (and no torpedo or dive bomebrs) there to rot in the vine.
                          Roosevelt stupidly deployed the core of the Pacific fleet from San Diego to PH, which wargames had twice proven to be vulnerable to a carrier raid. SO the fleet was not near the crucial, perfectly defensible DEI, but was vulnerable to attack.
                          And the hilarity rolls on...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/far...s_plowing.html

                            http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/far.../money_01.html

                            But, German farm size remains the same meaning that mechanization only raises costs without really raising productivity. In the US farm size could increase greatly as there is much more land available for agriculture than in Germany so mechanization makes sense.

                            The idea here is that it doesn't matter if it takes a couple hours to plow the field or a week to do it if there is slack in the system. Productivity increases only when the efficiency of the whole system increases. If you can plow much faster but the field size is the same and the plow is idle most of the time it might make life for the farmer easier but it doesn't change the bottom line output.

                            You need better pesticides, fertilizers, larger farms, better harvesting methods, etc. When you improve the whole system it makes a difference. Making one small part of it better gains you little or nothing.

                            I did specify Germany expanding the fertilizer industry, etc,
                            Germany is much smaller than it was in 1933 and farm size is smaller, since most Junker properties have been fragmented and much of the agricultural land has become industrial, recreational, natural reserve or residential areas, yet today Germany and smaller France, Holland, etc, use tractors more than horses and are far more productive than in 1933.

                            You can compare the difference in productivity and wealth between the Germanic Menonites and Hutterites (who use tractors and trucks) and the related Amish (who use only horses) in several areas in the US and several other countries.
                            Last edited by Draco; 25 May 15, 11:39.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Draco View Post
                              I did specify Germany expanding the fertilizer industry, etc,
                              Germany is much smaller than it was in 1933 and farm size is smaller, since most Junker properties have been fragmented and much of the agricultural land has become industrial, recreational, natural reserve or residential areas, yet today Germany and smaller France, Holland, etc, use tractors more than horses and are far more productive than in 1933.

                              You can compare the difference in productivity and wealth between the Germanic Menonites and Hutterites (who use tractors and trucks) and the related Amish (who use only horses) in several areas in the US and several other countries.
                              Except that expanding fertilizer production competes with munitions production. The nitrates in fertilizer are the same basic ones used in most explosives. Therefore, you increase one you decrease the other.
                              That happened in the US too. But, in the US it ended up happening in reverse. Nitrate production increased dramatically during the war while fertilizer production was minimal. When the war ended those producers switched to fertilizer to stay in business.

                              What you propose is that Germany really increase munitions production because the second the country is at war fertilizer production will cease in favor of munitions.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                By expanding greatly the fertilizer, synthetic fuel, truck and tractor industries in 1933 (instead of bulding the Autobahn, etc,), In 1939 Germany has a formidable agriculture (with fewer farmers and more factory workers) and industry to produce explosives, tanks, etc, and a far more mobile army with large numbers of tractors and trucks. If fertilizer production increases several fold, then there can be both fertilizer and explosives production (instead of just the latter as it occurred). If the army is far more mobile and better equipped (thanks to the larger industry), it requires less explosives and experiences fewer casualties to defeat the enemy in a campaign.
                                Last edited by Draco; 25 May 15, 12:45.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X