GNP for 1940-1945

[Doctor Strategy]

Look what I found.

GNP of the great powers, 1939-45 (billions international dollars and 1985 prices)

Years of 1939/ 1940/ 1941/ 1942/ 1943/ 1944/ 1945/

1. USA: 788/ 851/ 1001/ 1190/ 1407/ 1522/ 1494/

2. UK: 215/ 237/ 258/ 265/ 271/ 260/ 249/

3. USSR: 308/ 345/ 297/ 227/ 252/ 300/ 284/

4. Germany: 271/ 273/ 290/ 294/ 300/ 308/ 216/

5. Italy: 114/ 115/ 114/ 112/ 102/ 83/ 65/

6. Japan: 135/ 139/ 141/ 141/ 143/ 136/ 68/

The military burden: five great powers, 1939 - 44 (per cent of
national income)

Years of 1939/ 1940/ 1941/ 1942/ 1943/ 1944/

1. USA: 2/ 3 / 14 / 40/ 53 / 54/

2. UK: 15/ 44/ 53/ 52 / 55/ 53/

3. USSR: 17/ 28 / 61/ 61/ 53 /

4. Germany: 32/ 49/ 56/ 66/ 71/

5. Italy: 10/ 21/ 30/ 31/ 40/

When you average the 1941,1942 values from the previous year as Revised starts in the Spring 1942, Here is what you get. The US had 1095.5, Germany with Italy had 405, Russia had 262, UK had 261.5, and Japan had 141. Multiply their value by their burden and you get money spent on war. The adjusted costs are US 308.07, Germany and Italy 212.68, Russia 159.82, UK 137.27 and Japan 81.08 (since they didn't list we'll assume a 55% rate and 60% respectively).

Assume that you give the US a 40 IPC starting value because they are the high producers. The remaining production should be as follows Germany and Italy 28, Russia 21, UK 18, Japan 11. These should be close to their historical output total. How is this for realism for everyone? The Axis is doomed to lose for sure. If the Axis did an economic analysis they would have stayed with Russia as an ally. Comments anyone? The only advantage the Axis had was the military buildup ahead of everyone else. They lacked resources to replace the units lost, unlike the US who suffered 5 Sherman losses per Panther in later battles but the Germans couldn't keep up to them in production.

[series]

Nice bit of research docter. Ok, Here's my opinion on this: First of all, with naval units as they are, Japan will be screwed with these rules. Other than that, how about we build off of your comment, 5 shermans died for every panzer (and I read that about 10 soviets died for every german), so why not do the following:

We use those income levels you suggested, however, all axis units attack and defend at +1 or +2 for free (probably +1), and sea units cost less perhaps. That way, the allies will probably win, but the Axis will still have a realistic chance.

And also, the UK seems in big trouble too. Like I said, maybe cheaper sea units, could help.

And a final way to add balance would be to make USA a bit further from the action then it currently is, I feel it's a tad bit too close to everything else, especially north africa.

[Atlantikwall]

Of course, Germany and Japan were economically far behind he allies, but they changed their production earlier towards military purposes (and the figures "prove" that) . But you don`t have to look only at the production of Germany alone . In spring 1942 they occupied (almost) all of continental Europe from the Atlantic coast to Western Russia and Japan occupied large parts of East Asia. And what is much more important: both Germany and Japan were autocraticic countries (same with the Soviet Union), but the UK and the USA were democracies. Both aggressor nations were focused on the war and the allies had to react. And the axis "financed" the war by the occupied nations (e.g. gold from the dutch central bank) and took advantage of its resources (slave labour, especially with polish workers). Not to forget the "morale" of the troups (after consecutice "easy" victories) and the "patriotism" of the population!

It`s (almost) the same in A&A as in "reality": the US-economy (and its IPC) is "far away from action" and you have to transfer its power first to he battleground states. And if this will take too long, the war might be over untill the USA has arrived!

[Doctor Strategy]

Maybe with adjusted values, the need for the Axis to get an economic victory becomes most useful. I propose that when you conquer a territory you get a one time bonus of 10 IPCs per territory to represent looting. Upon liberation the territory would give you a one time bonus of 15 IPC bonus per territory. If you capture or liberate a victory city it would gain you 20 IPCs. This represents monies offered in gratitude. The IPC values of territories could remain the same. No matter how many territories without an IC are captured, you would not lose any base income. If you lose any of your starting ICs, the territory value will be deducted from your production. If the US makes 40 base and loses Los Angeles at 10 IPCs their income would become 30 per turn. This will simplify adjusting the production chart up and down and save time also. If your capital is captured you only lose half of your IPCs on hand and can purchase units for 2 turns afterward to try and liberate your capital. If DC got captured wouldn't the US just move it temporarily to LA. IMO we would. If you do not liberate your capital after two turns, your morale sours and your units give up. Who wouldn't take or liberate a crappy island for a 10 or 15 IPC boon. At 1 IPC per turn it will take 10-15 rds to get that kind of money from holding it. However, there is incentive for you to try and keep your gains as the former owners can liberate it back for a 15 IPC bonus. This instant cash can help fuel your war machine and rewards aggressive play. The only question is how to institute the economic victory. Do you say 20 pts worth of territories at the printed values would be too easy to obtain? Or do you put a set value like in Pacific in victory pts obtained by IPCs gained. 40 victory pts sounds about right at 1 pt per 10 IPCs gained. This will take a little while to gain. Let me know what you think.

[series]

To be honest, a 10/15 IPC income is a bit ridiculous. I like where your going with this, honestly, but I feel that may be a bit insane. I like victory points, but it will be harder to achieve many in revised, especially the 40 you suggest. I say revert to economic victory, as you say. However, I have a question: When you said the money Japan and Germany/Italy had, were they the only nations included, or did that include all the money and etc. they got from Norway/France/Etc, if any.

[Atlantikwall]

Hello Doc S,

I took your figures. If you add the military expenditures from 1939 and 1940 you might get the military presence in spring 1942 (because of time lags) and the board would look like that:

SU: 148,96
Ger/ITA: 256,04
UK: 136,53
***: 111,31 (same % as Ger supposed)
USA: 43,13

In Revised, Germany ist the nation with the biggest army worth 307 IPC in the starting setup. The SU has 138, the UK 254, Japan 268 and the USA222. That means, that the both Germany and the SU (propably) have a smaller military power than in "reality", but Japan and the UK and especially the USA are much too strong! So if you would like to make it "real" and give the allies a bigger IPC-advantage you also have to give the axis more troops!

If you includ the 1941 figure, it would (of course) look better for the allies:

SU: 330,13
Ger/ITA: 452,64
UK: 273,27
***: 190,27
USA: 183,27

That means, that the SU is still much to weak in military presence, Germany a little bit to weak and Japan too strong!

[MasterHawk]

This stuff's amazing. I would love to see realistic IPC values.

[Doctor Strategy]

I believe that they included everything. The amount spent was a certain percentage of their total income. For instance, Germany spent 66% of their GNP in 1942. They spent 66% toward the military the other 34% was spent on running the empire. You might have to keep them higher to make them worth going for. After all only 2 tanks, some of the best Germany had were the PzKpfw IV Ausf F2 and cost DM 115962 with armament & radio. I don't know how much a mark was worth then but I think even a crappy little island could be looted for 300,000 dollars back then. Consider the below which was the total cost of the war for all sides.

Cost of the War

Allied Country Costs ($M US)
Australia 10,036
Belgium 6,324
Canada 20,104
China 49,072
France 111,272
India 4,804
Netherlands 9,624
New Zealand 2,560
Norway 992
South Africa 2,152
United Kingdom Unknown
United States 288,000
USSR 93,012

Cost of the War

Axis Country Costs ($M US)
Germany 212,336
Italy 21,072
Japan 41,272

[Doctor Strategy]

Hello Doc S,

I took your figures. If you add the military expenditures from 1939 and 1940 you might get the military presence in spring 1942 (because of time lags) and the board would look like that:

SU: 148,96
Ger/ITA: 256,04
UK: 136,53
***: 111,31 (same % as Ger supposed)
USA: 43,13

In Revised, Germany ist the nation with the biggest army worth 307 IPC in the starting setup. The SU has 138, the UK 254, Japan 268 and the USA222. That means, that the both Germany and the SU (propably) have a smaller military power than in "reality", but Japan and the UK and especially the USA are much too strong! So if you would like to make it "real" and give the allies a bigger IPC-advantage you also have to give the axis more troops!

If you includ the 1941 figure, it would (of course) look better for the allies:

SU: 330,13
Ger/ITA: 452,64
UK: 273,27
***: 190,27
USA: 183,27

That means, that the SU is still much to weak in military presence, Germany a little bit to weak and Japan too strong!

You are absolutely right. The starting setups have to be revised. After all Japan had 3X as many ACs as the US at the time of Pearl Harbor but they lacked a radar unit.

Percentage Of German Forces On The Eastern Front Each Year

Unit: 1941/ 1942/ 1943/ 1944/
Divisions: 67%/ 75%/ 60%/ 57%/
Troops: 84%/ 74%/ 72%/ 40%/
Aircraft: 64%/ 65%/ 42%/ 45%/

Mid-Year Manpower On The Eastern Front

Year Soviet/ German
1941: 5 million/ 3.3 million
1942: 5 million/ 3.1 million
1943: 6.2 million/ 2.9 million
1944: 6.8 million/ 3.1 million

Armored Fighting Vehicles Production 1939-45

Years of: 1939/ 1940 / 1941/ 1942/ 1943/ 1944/ 1945/
Germany: 1359/ 2200/ 5200 / 9200 / 17300/ 22100/ 4400/
Soviet Union:na/ 2794/ 6590/ 24446/ 24089/ 28963/ 15419/

[series]

Hey doctor S, I really hope you start translating these into rules we can use for gameplay. it sounds pretty awesome if you do. I'm glad somebody finally took the time to research IPC values and units, and I'm hoping you can turn them into the most kick-ass variant ever :D !

[Doctor Strategy]

Here is the soldier statistics for the War.Keep in mind the numbers tallied can vary by up to + or - 20% depending on source used.

WWII Death Count Per Country:

Country: Military/ Civilian/ Total
USSR: 12 million/17 million/29 million
Poland: 597,000 5.86 million/6.27 million
Germany: 3.25 million/2.44 million/5.69 million
Yugoslavia:305,000/1.35 million/1.66 million
Romania: 450,000/ 465,000/ 915,000
Hungary: 200,000/ 600,000/ 800,000
France: 245,000/ 350,000/ 595,000
Italy: 380,000/ 153,000/ 533,000
Great Britain: 403,000/ 92,700/ 495,000
United States: 407,000/ 6,000/ 413,000
Czechoslovakia: 7,000/ 315,000/ 322,000
Holland: 13,700/ 236,000 /249,000
Greece: 19,000/ 140,000/ 159,000
Belgium: 76,000/ 23,000/ 99,000</TD
China:2.0 million/7.8 million/9.8 million
Japan:1.3 million/670,000/2.0 million

The Russians lost approximately 4 times as many troops as Germany. The Allies as a group lost more than twice the amount of men as the Axis.

Number of divisions available for these countries over the course of the war:

Country: 1939/1940/1941/1942/1943/ 1944/1945/End of War

France: 86/105/0/0/5/7/14/14

Germany*:78/189/235/261/327/347/319/375

Great Britain:9/34/35/38/39/ 37/31/31

Italy:6/73/64/89/86/2/9/10

Poland:43/2/2/2/2/ 5/5/5

Romania:11/28/33/ 31/33/32/24/24

USSR:194/200/220/250/350/ 400/488/491

USA**:8/24/39/76/95/94/94/94

*towards the end of the war, many of these divisions were either incomplete or poorly equipped
**including both Army and Marine divisions and accounting for the Pacific theater

[Lt M Cotten]

How many divisions does a infantry piece represent? Has that been made 'official'?

[Drax Kramer]

There was never, even a rough ratio between game piece and its real war counterpart, set in any of A&A games and it wasn't an omission on behalf of the designer(s).

It would have been difficult to set a unique ratio in game that encompasses theatres like Russia where millions of soldiers fought each other or Pacific where the battle often depended upon the last thousand of reserves poured in.

An infantry piece in Hawaii (two divisions) cannot represent the same forces as one in West Russia (ten divisions).

In similar vain, direct copypaste of national GNPs or military budgets or even the number of tanks (aircraft) produced into IPCs is both impossible and undesirable.

What IPCs and units must represent faithfully are the capabilities of respective major powers.

US fleet landing troops in Japan on turn 3 (short of gross Japanese incompetance) means that something is wrong with the game. Atlantic clear of German submarines at the end of turn 2 also means that something is wrong with the game. China conquered by the end of the turn 2 means something is wrong with the game.

Granted, this means that the only way of getting the "right" setups and IPCs is extensive playtesting. So, the extensive knowledge of WW2 helps primarily in making difference from what "feels" right (Japanese fighting with Americans in Pacific) from what is obviously wrong (joint Axis invasion of Canada).

The actual ammount of IPCs and units required to achieve the desired historical "feel" can vary from the historical figures. Basically, in game with simple mechanics like A&A designers should look for the woods, not the individual trees. The problem, as I perceive it, comes when designers plant the trees in the wrong place resulting with the wrong kind of wood.


Drax

[Doctor Strategy]

Cost of the War

Allied Country Costs ($M US)

France: 111,272
United Kingdom: Unknown
United States: 288,000
USSR: 93,012

Cost of the War

Axis Country Costs ($M US)
Germany: 212,336
Italy: 21,072
Japan: 41,272

Just looking at the figures for money spent you can see what the IPC values are going to shape up to. The US is once again the high producer and we keep their IPC value at 42. Germany+Italy spent 81.04% of the US. Their IPC value would be 35. Japan spent 14.33% of the US total. Their IPC value would be 7. The UK probably would be around France in money spent or 38.54%. Their IPC total is 17. The Russians spent 32.30% of the US total. Their IPC total should be 14.

To recap:

US: 42 IPCs
UK: 17 IPCs
USSR: 14 IPCs
Total: 73 IPCs

Germany: 35 IPCs
Japan: 7 IPCs
Total: 42 IPCs

Does this present a more realistic picture? Yeah, I know that the production was cranked up at the end but total expeditures may be a more realistic way of figuring IPCs. As you can't increase your output absent from taking territories, this may be an equalizer. Was Japan really this weak? You betcha they were. They had a lot of infantry but could not keep up with mechanized units and such. Their rifles were of such poor quality they would often jam.
Japan was just to keep America occupied to give Germany a chance to force a concession. Germany wanted to keep the US out of Europe as much as possible. It's kinda ironic that Germany may have won if Japan didn't Pearl Harbor us.

[TrimChris]

No one's ever accused A&A IPC prodution of being realistic. Game balance is the primary objective.

[Drax Kramer]

No one's ever accused A&A IPC prodution of being realistic. Game balance is the primary objective.

If A&A IPC distribution allows for recreation of historical campaigns as well as what was within historical capabilities of respective major powers, than IPCs are realistic no matter their actual ammount.


Drax

[TomJag3]

Drax,

Excellent analysis throughout this thread. The other posters on this thread have also done a fine job of analysis. It's been very interesting and thought provoking. Thanks to all of you.

[Vollick1979]

Just looking at the figures for money spent you can see what the IPC values are going to shape up to. The US is once again the high producer and we keep their IPC value at 42. Germany+Italy spent 81.04% of the US. Their IPC value would be 35. Japan spent 14.33% of the US total. Their IPC value would be 7. The UK probably would be around France in money spent or 38.54%. Their IPC total is 17. The Russians spent 32.30% of the US total. Their IPC total should be 14.

To recap:

US: 42 IPCs
UK: 17 IPCs
USSR: 14 IPCs
Total: 73 IPCs

Germany: 35 IPCs
Japan: 7 IPCs
Total: 42 IPCs

Does this present a more realistic picture? Yeah, I know that the production was cranked up at the end but total expeditures may be a more realistic way of figuring IPCs. As you can't increase your output absent from taking territories, this may be an equalizer. Was Japan really this weak? You betcha they were. They had a lot of infantry but could not keep up with mechanized units and such. Their rifles were of such poor quality they would often jam.
Japan was just to keep America occupied to give Germany a chance to force a concession. Germany wanted to keep the US out of Europe as much as possible. It's kinda ironic that Germany may have won if Japan didn't Pearl Harbor us.


You used a linear scale in your calculations, perhaps you should have applied a logarithmic scale. These would drastically narrow the gap between the rich and poor and makes a little more sense to me. The first dollar you spend gets you far more than the millionth.

Another problem with assigning realistic IPC values is that they are static (I know series had advanced where they changed value somehow) but territories that are being fought over should lose IPC over territories that aren't taking fire on a constant basis.

[Doctor Strategy]

A simple scale was used because you don't know exactly how much a unit cost for a particular side or how much effort went into putting things together. Those with lower IPC income had vast reserves of manpower in their armies. There is no way to represent that in the game. Drafting limits based on historical numbers and lower costs may do that. I don't see the rationale of charging 3 for INF and 5 for a whole division of tanks. The equipping of soldiers and ammunition is a lot cheaper and easier to make for the soldiers than for the tanks. It is balanced in that the conversions were made into US dollars and the disparity between the numbers says something. Unless an armor cost Japan 5,000 dollars vs. 50,000 for the US, I think it is a fair representation. There also is no way to make up for superiority of units as the Soviets and Germans had by far the superior armor at least in the early and mid war. The values are no way cast in stone just al representation based on amount spent. The values would have to be adjusted to allow for playability.

[Attila the Wolf]

A couple things.

5 shermans for 1 panzer. I'd like to see the source for that. Common wisdom was that it would take 5 shermans to knock out 1 tiger tank, not just any panzer. But heh, it could be true since the American tanks were sorely outclassed on the western front. I have trouble believing that figure due to the allied air supremacy which more than made up for the limited abilities of US armour.

Second, what are the sources for GNP? How accurate is that? But most importantly, GNP is production and does not take into consideration manpower resources. For example, the USSR had a virtually limitless supply of infantry - something that industrial output does not account for. USSR may have a crappy GNP, but it makes up for it in its sheer number of soldiers.

Third, the USSR:USA loss ratio was approx 50:1. Estimates for USSR casualties during the war range from 20-40 million; there's just no way to know due to the limited means of measuring deaths in the Soviet Union (and the lack of interest in knowing/admitting). German losses were approx 6 million.

[Doctor Strategy]

1)You are right I misread the quote. Here it is: The Panther’s record on the battlefield is staggering: on average it took 5 M4 Sherman tanks to destroy 1 Panther, yet only 30% of Panthers destroyed were knocked out from the ground, and by the time the Panther was mass produced for the front, German tanks were outnumbered 5 to 1. So it seems the Americans took to the air against the Panther to destroy them. I do not as yet have statistics on tank vs. tank casualties. Except for Germany Vs. Russia. Let me know if you want to see those stats.

2)This is the source that was used for the GNP figures: Mark Harrison, ³Accounting for war: Soviet production, employement and
defence burden, 1940 - 1945², Cambridge University press 1996. I have no reason to dispute the accuracy of it. This was the only figures I could find. If someone could come up with something else maybe we could compare. I don't remember what web site I found it on as I visited about 50 on that day gathering information.

3) Again casualties differ by the source but the site I got it from claimed that their figures were the most accurate. I think it was a US war documents site.

[Attila the Wolf]

Looks good. I doubt there's stats on tank-vs.-tank casualties on the Russian front, as I don't think the Soviets would keep such records and the Germans were too busy fighting for their lives.

[Doctor Strategy]

Here's the stats and where they were found.

Tank Losses

Year: German/ Soviet

1941: 2,758/ 20,500
1942: 2,648/ 15,000
1943: 6,362/ 22,400
1944: 6,434/ 16,900
1945: 7,382/ 8,700

Sources:
1)Russian Tanks of World War II Stalin's Armored Might, by Tim Bean & Will Fowler, 2002
2)Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945, by Wolfgang Fleischer, 1999

[Kaufschtick]

Maybe with adjusted values, the need for the Axis to get an economic victory becomes most useful. I propose that when you conquer a territory you get a one time bonus of 10 IPCs per territory to represent looting.

You've got to be kidding :eek:

[Doctor Strategy]

You've got to be kidding :eek:

Oh, are you that naive. Did not the Axis loot and plunder for example precious art, gold, and other valuables. The Allies could receive the bonus in gratitude for liberation.

[Lobo]

Sure they looted but those things found their way into the private homes of the conquering nation's leadership. It did not do much if anything for war production and certainly did not amount to 10 million man hours of production.

[Doctor Strategy]

Sure they looted but those things found their way into the private homes of the conquering nation's leadership. It did not do much if anything for war production and certainly did not amount to 10 million man hours of production.

Yeah, you may be right but just after the start of WWII, the Germans extorted 1 billion Marks from the Jewish people. I guess this didn't do much for war production either. :rolleyes:

[Doctor Strategy]

Ok. But most people agree with the looting (that is not actually looting per se just a historical representation of what happens) of capitals when conquered for all their IPCs. This is usually substantially more than 10 IPCs.

I guess I'm having a little trouble with my imagination here.

[Attila the Wolf]

Everyone loots though. The Germans were just more systematic about it. For this idea though, you should be thinking about seizing the economic/industrial assets of the conquered nation.

Germany's conquest of Europe allowed it to fight the war for an extra 3-4 years. German planners originally envisioned a war that could last no more than a year before Germany's national resources would be exhausted. The conquest of other countries allowed them to extend this estimate substantially. Manpower was also a huge issue as Germany drew many recruits from captured nations. Czechoslovakia also provided Germany with the Skoda tractor/tank factories which ended up providing Germany with a lot of tank chassis (pl?) for its proliferation of assault guns.

So, yeah, capturing a territory does provide a lot of industrial production benefit, but I think that is better represented by the income value of the territory in question. Looting a country for its monetary worth isn't all that effective since the money in question will be practically worthless since the country has been conquered and other nations won't accept it.

[Doctor Strategy]

Everyone loots though. The Germans were just more systematic about it. For this idea though, you should be thinking about seizing the economic/industrial assets of the conquered nation.

Germany's conquest of Europe allowed it to fight the war for an extra 3-4 years. German planners originally envisioned a war that could last no more than a year before Germany's national resources would be exhausted. The conquest of other countries allowed them to extend this estimate substantially. Manpower was also a huge issue as Germany drew many recruits from captured nations. Czechoslovakia also provided Germany with the Skoda tractor/tank factories which ended up providing Germany with a lot of tank chassis (pl?) for its proliferation of assault guns.

So, yeah, capturing a territory does provide a lot of industrial production benefit, but I think that is better represented by the income value of the territory in question. Looting a country for its monetary worth isn't all that effective since the money in question will be practically worthless since the country has been conquered and other nations won't accept it.

Good analysis. But if Gerrmany controlled all of Europe couldn't they just hypothetically force those nations that they conquered to accept that currency as payment? I don't know if they did this in the real war.