Talk:Military production during World War II

"Potential contribution"

US values are included in Allied totals for all years in order to illustrate potential contribution & Lend-Lease

It seems odd to have the US contribution, over 50% of the allied total, for the period 1938 to March 1941 (when the Lend Lease program started) included only "to illustrate potential contribution", especially when other countries are treated differently. I'd really like to see what the curve of the graph would look like if it only included actual contribution. And why are the notes in text different from the notes in the chart image, when the total figures are identical? —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 16:01 Z

Naval Forces

The article needs to be updated - the USA sure not only produced 349 Destroyers (175 Fletcher, 58 Allen M. Sumner, 98 Gearing, Rest?), but also a massive amount of Destroyer Escorts (440 after my count), as opposed to the British Empire building 41 (24) carriers in war-time. Really? And what 102 cruisers did the British built in WWII? German Torpedo-Boats are also not listed, though British Empire Frigates are! Not a very precise list 91.14.51.61 (talk

Clarifying what vessels have been counted:

Note: The article is for naval production from Anschluss (12 March 1938) to signing of the surrender of Japan (2 Sep 1945). So, many vessels that were a few days or months outside of this spectrum like Essex-Class Leyte weren't counted.

German BB: 2 Bismarck, 2 Scharnhorst=4; Cruisers: 3 Hipper; DD: 7 1934A, 6 1936, 15 Narvik, 3 1936B=31; 26 Type II, 693, Type VII, 194 Type IX, 8 Type X, 10 Type XIV, 7 Type XVII, 118 Type XXI, 63 Type XXIII=1119 German subs;

Italian BB: 3 Littorio; Cruisers: 3 Capitani Romani; DD: 17 Soldati; Italian escort: 59 Gabbiano; 5 Brin,4 Liuzzi, 10 Marcello, 6 Marconi, 4 Adua, 13 Acciaio, 1 Foca, 13 Flutto, 4 Cagni, 2 Romolo, 21 CB=83 Italian subs;

Japanese CV: 2 Shoukaku, 2 Zuiho, 2 Hiyo, 1 Ryuho CVL, 1 Taihou, 2 Chitose, 3 Unryu, 1 Shinano=14; CVE: 3 Taiyo, 1 Kaiyo, 1 Shimane Maru, 1 Yamashio Maru=6; BB: 2 Yamato; Cruisers: 2 Tone, 2 Ioshima,1 Oyodo,4 Agano, 3 Katori=12; DE: 4 Shimushu, 14 Etorofo, 8 Mikura, 9 Hiburi, 20 Ukuru, 53 Type C, 67 Type D; 12 Kaidai, 1 Junsen, 3 Type A1, 2 type AM, 18 B1, 29 Type B, 11 Type C, 3 I-52, 13 Type D, 1 I-351, 3 I-400, 3 I-201, 19 Kaichu, 18 Ro-100, 10 Ha-101, 101 Type A , 200 kairyu, 420 kaiten=867; Other large vessels: seaplane tender: Akitsushima, Mizuho, 4 Kamikawa Maru, Nisshin

American CV: 17 Essex, 2 Yorktown, 1 Wasp and 9 Independence (which are technically CVL); CVE 1-113, 115, 117, BAVG 1-6=121 CVE; BB: 2 North Carolina, 4 South Dakota, 4 Iowa Cruisers: 2 Alaska, 12 Baltimore, 25 Cleveland, 7 Atlanta, 6 Brooklyn, 1 Wichita=52; DD: 66 Gleaves, 30 Benson, 175 Fletcher, 56 Sumner, 42 Gearing, 12 Sims, 10 Benhams, 3 Somers, 2 Gridley=396; DE/frigates: 97 Evarts, 148 Buckley, 72 Cannon, 85 Edsall, 22 Rudderow, 83 John CB, 96 Tacoma, 343 PC-461, 68 PCE-842==1014; 77 Gato, 108 Balao, 2 Mackerel, 6 Salmon, 10 Sargo, 12 Tambor, 19 Tench=234; Other large vessels: 8 Mount McKinley AGC, 5 Appalachian AGC, APA: 34 Bayfield, 117 Haskell, 32 Gilliam, 4 Crescent City, 3 Arthur Middleton, 2 Frederick Fuckston, 3 Ormsby, 7 President Jackson, 4 Sumter, 9 Windsor= 215, amphibious ships: 108 AKA, 8 Ashland, 15 Case Grande, seaplane tenders: 4 Currituck, 31 Barnegat, 4 Kenneth Whiting

British CV: 7 Collosus CVL, 2 Implacable, 4 Illustrious, Ark Royal, Unicorn; 11 Empire, 7 Rapana, 3 Nairana, HMS Pretoria Castle, 5 Pegasus=29 British CVE; BB: 5 KGV; Cruisers: 16 Dido, 11 Fiji, 3 Minotaur, 5 Town; DD: 27 Tribal; 24 J, K, N; 16 L and M, 16 O and P; 16 Q and R, 16 S and T, 16 U and V, 16 W and Z, 11 C, 7 Battle, 24 G and H, 7 Buenos Aires for Arg, 2 G for Greeks, 2 I for UK 2 I for Tur=202 DD in total; DE/frigate: 86 Hunt Class, 151 River, 26 Loch, 7 Bay=270; British Corvette: 294 Flower, 44 Castle=338; Other large vessels: 2 Roberts Monitor;

Soviet 6 Kirov Cruisers, 3 Khasan Monitors

French BB/BC 1 Dunkerque, 1 Richelieu; DD: 6 Le Hardi, 1 Beograd

to Others: Cruisers: 2 Rapana=Dutch CVE; 2 Tromp, DD: 3 Marcillio Dias, 2 Beograd; SS: 2 O19, 7 O21

So I'm assuming vessels built on contracts from UK or USA for foreign navies like Greeks would count towards the Greeks, right? It is a useful measure of military strength, but not necessarily industrial strength imo, so maybe we would need some clarification notes. Also might need more notes for British and American vessels loaned to foreign and free forces navies (like Dutch and French).

For military production rather than size of military it makes more sense to ascribe the production to the producer, notes can be added to clarify if it was for an Ally, or if it was paid for by an Ally - eg British/French commercial purchases prior to Lend Lease - rather than the producing nation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

How to classify Japanese landing craft carriers? Some of them couldn't land aircraft and generally had limited capability as aircraft carriers.

got a particular example in mind? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Some examples of Japanese " landing craft carriers" are Akitsu Maru whose Wikipedia page states: "Conventional aircraft were able to fly off from her deck but could not land aboard due to lack of landing mechanisms", Kumano Maru has similar desc. They all seem to be IJA ships rather than IJN for the purpose of supporting amphibious landings and is seen as an amphibious warfare ship of sorts. Also interested in how seaplane tenders will be classified, or are we just making a new row for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.chinguun (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Note on Richelieu, its construction was essentially halted when France surrendered to Germany and resumed in USA as Free French vessel, so one could add another BB to US industry roster with asterisks.

Completely misleading introduction

This article is poor quality. In the entire introductory text there is no mention of the USSR, until the end and even there it gets a quarter of the text on Britain. Any article about the big picture of WW2 that so downplays the Russian contribution is not only nonsense, it's obvious nonsense, making a joke of Wikipedia as a reliable source for well documented non contentious issues such as WW2. This is compounded by the facts in the data tables where the actual numerical Soviet contribution is at odds with the introductory text, Furthermore, the language used is inappropriate, using only strong positive statements about Britain and making the USSR look like a victim. When one considers that the Britush Empire came out of the war broken while the USSR stepped up to superpower status the misrepresentation is clear. The Anglo Saxon focus suggests that this is the 'western' bias unfortunately only too common on Wikipedia. This is compounded by the complete absence of any mention of China, not only in the text but in the tables, which adds the charge of racism. The many data tables provided are interesting and possibly informative so it would be a huge improvement if the article was rewritten as a data reference source and the unreliable, biased and unnecessary introductory "context" paragraphs are cut out altogether . There are plenty of far superior free proper histories for "context". This should be re written as a data set. There is work to be done on the numerical data as well, for example from the economic data presented it is suggested that the British colonies alone had a higher gdp than the USSR for most of the war. This is simply not plausible. It is also implausible that there are no figures for the Chinese contribution at least at the gross level of manpower and gdp. Felimy419 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Random word at end of first paragraph

"Access to the funding and industrial resources necessary to sustain the war effort was linked to their respective economic and political alliances. As"

Randomly has 'As' by itself.

History

Edit the paper 104.156.14.137 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)