Economics Quiz

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Economics Quiz

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Economics Quiz

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Economics Quiz - 4/9/2012 7:58:28 AM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

In the interest of debunking the giant production capacity of the 3rd Reich myth I will post a few military production trivia. All fairly easy no peaking online or at books just take your best guess:

First Question:

Based on total aircraft production during the war rank the following countries top to bottom.

These are the top 8 producers of military aircraft during WW2.

Reorder by Rank (currently alphabetical)

Canada
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Soviet Union
United Kingdom
United States

Hints California would rank pretty high on this list. France wasn't in the war very long.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/9/2012 8:05:29 AM >

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

Post #: 1

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/9/2012 2:24:22 PM

doomtrader

Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

USA
USSR
UK
Germany
Japan
Italy
Canada
France

IIRC USA produces about 30% of all planes

_____________________________

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 2

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/9/2012 2:26:07 PM

doomtrader

Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

BTW,
I love WW2 posters

_____________________________

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 3

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/9/2012 7:54:13 PM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

The posters are great aren't they. They are mostly public domain as well so you can put them in your games

Pretty good guess Got the top 5 correct and France but Canada outproduced Italy in aircraft.

Note Germany number 4 and Italy is number 7 add Japan at number 5 and and its pretty clear the air war was won on the factory floor as well as the sky.

USA 324,750
USSR 143,145
UK 131,549
Germany 119,307
Japan 76,320
Canada 16,431 Ay

Italy 11,122
France 4,016

US production alone was nearly 3x German and were in the war for two fewer years. US production was about 5x German per year. In addition many US aircraft were 4 engine bombers like B-17 and B-29 much more expensive than single engine fighters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

USA
USSR
UK
Germany
Japan
Italy
Canada
France

IIRC USA produces about 30% of all planes

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 4

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/9/2012 8:28:12 PM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

Next question

Which country ...
Built the most subs?
Destroyed the most shipping (tons)?
Which Country was number 2 in shipping destruction?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 5

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/9/2012 9:02:49 PM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

Here is one more:

Which labor pool produced the most war goods?

German Slave labor
German paid factory workers
All Axis occupied nations
American women
Soviet Collectives

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 6

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/9/2012 9:06:24 PM

doomtrader

Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

in currency? in tonns?

_____________________________

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 7

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/9/2012 11:54:04 PM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

Pretty much have to use economic value to compare anything even slightly different.

A ton of gravel has a war winning value but not as much as a ton of coal which is of course less valuable (for war winning or for sale) than a ton of aluminum. And of course a ton of B-29 has even more war winning value. And to carry this to the logical extreme a ton of plutonium....

Short answer: by currency value of products. (more specifically labor added value) I could have worded the question better...

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

in currency? in tonns?

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/9/2012 11:56:30 PM >

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 8

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/10/2012 12:48:53 AM

doomtrader

Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

So can we compare worker's value in GULAGs with the value of work in factory in California?

_____________________________

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 9

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/10/2012 2:08:48 AM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

Absolutely (if you pardon the pun); we are of course talking about economic output... The point I wanted to make with the 'question' is that the Nazi economic system was not only cruel and barbaric but inefficient and stupid as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

So can we compare worker's value in GULAGs with the value of work in factory in California?

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 10

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/10/2012 2:42:41 AM

battlevonwar

Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline

Yes I agree, Germans really were worthless in terms of production. Arrogance?

In brackets my guess:

German Slave labor(3)
German paid factory workers(2)
All Axis occupied nations(5)
American women(1)
Soviet Collectives(4)

My guess of these choices

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 11

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/10/2012 6:56:16 AM

doomtrader

Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

This is my bet:

American women
All Axis occupied nations
Soviet Collectives
German paid factory workers
German Slave labor

_____________________________

(in reply to battlevonwar)

Post #: 12

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/10/2012 7:16:19 AM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

I don't have rankings, Just know that the US female workforce outproduced the entire German economy (65% US of aircraft workers for example were women) The astonishing thing is that Germany did as well as it did during the war. Economically and politically they were backward and of course monumentally arrogant overconfident. Much of this stems from the racial policies which were barbaric in the extreme.

US GDP during years 1939 to 1945 was always over 200% of Germany and was over nearly 300% in 1943 then over 300% in 1944 and the war ended so you really can't count the nearly 500% in 1945.

UK GDP (not counting commonwealth) stayed pretty steady at just over 80% of Germany from 1940 onward. Heroism and military prowess did not decide the war the political will to sustain losses (particularly in the USSR) manpower and superior production were the deciding factors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Yes I agree, Germans really were worthless in terms of production. Arrogance?

In brackets my guess:

German Slave labor(3)
German paid factory workers(2)
All Axis occupied nations(5)
American women(1)
Soviet Collectives(4)

My guess of these choices

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/10/2012 7:17:38 AM >

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to battlevonwar)

Post #: 13

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/10/2012 5:49:24 PM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

I remember reading a book a long time ago about why the Americans had such an incredible growth of military production.

It had a lot to do with the Democrat government trying to stimulate the Depression economy by getting capitalists to build factorys to produce anything. The longterm plan being to convert these factories over to produce for the future war. The infrastructure built in the 30's was put to good use in the 40's.

In contrast, the Germans basically went into the war with factories still producing non-military items. They assumed that their existing army was not only good enough for their needs but could disband parts of it to use the manpower in agriculture.

I would go so far to say that Short-Sighted thinking is a German characteristic.

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 14

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/11/2012 2:13:12 AM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

Maybe not completely wrong, but not really correct.

AIUI the reason the US was able to expand production so much was *partly* because of the effects of the Great Depression ... there was a lot of spare capacity being underutilised ... the war, and the leadup to US entry when the UK and France made large orders with US industry, led to that capacity being utilised and then expanded.

As for the Germans, misleading and wrong. I suggest reading Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" which is comprehensive, current, and will put you right.

Simply put, however, Germany's main problem was a lack of resources (and the lack of wherewithal to buy them) more than a lack of factories coupled with an inefficient and unmechanised agricultural sector that gave them a choice between having a mobilised army in the field or feeding the population of Germany. Either/Or.

The Germans mobilised for war in 1939 knowing they would have to win, then steal Poland's harvest and let the Poles starve, in order to feed their own people.

Also, their centralised attempts to outproduce the US (especially) failed, largely because of the corrupt, inefficient, and counterproductive nature of the Nazi state "organisation" (using the word extremely loosely).

The Nazis organised things under political fiefdoms interested largely in empire building and point scoring*, the US organised things under industralists interested largely in efficiency.

* NB: Yes. Even Speer. Perhaps especially Speer. Read "Wages of Destruction"

Phil

< Message edited by aspqrz -- 4/11/2012 2:14:43 AM >

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 15

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/12/2012 12:20:16 AM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

All valid points but my main thrust regarding Germany inefficiency stands. Slave Labor wasteful in labor and resources. The centralized economy added to the problem, and I agree they were severely limited by lack of resources. They didn't have enough of nearly anything from resources to manpower (except perhaps coal) and were wasteful in many cases misusing what they had. The cruel raciest policies caused some of the most decisive manpower losses before the war even began. Much of the top scientific talent the allies had (Manhattan Project on down) were essentially political refugees from fascist regimes. The Nazi purge of talented manpower was had significant adverse effects on their entire economy, not unlike Stalin's purge of military leadership.

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 16

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/12/2012 7:25:04 AM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

All valid points but my main thrust regarding Germany inefficiency stands. Slave Labor wasteful in labor and resources. The centralized economy added to the problem, and I agree they were severely limited by lack of resources. They didn't have enough of nearly anything from resources to manpower (except perhaps coal) and were wasteful in many cases misusing what they had. The cruel raciest policies caused some of the most decisive manpower losses before the war even began. Much of the top scientific talent the allies had (Manhattan Project on down) were essentially political refugees from fascist regimes. The Nazi purge of talented manpower was had significant adverse effects on their entire economy, not unlike Stalin's purge of military leadership.

Indeed, I do not disagree with your point regarding forced/slave labour ... indeed, I agree with it entirely.

Manpower problems were, indeed, considerable ... but, strangely enough, in one area the Nazis (very unpublically) backed down from their pre-war policies ...

Women.

Pre-war = Kinder, Kuche, Kirche ("Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" ... very loosely ... literally "Children, Kitchen and Church"). They fired almost all, if not all, female public servants (Doctors, Lawyers etc.) and largely closed the Universities to women (at least in "nontraditional" subjects ... certainly Medicine, Law, Engineering, Public Administration ... dunno for sure about Humanities).

War = Reversed rapidly and entirely. Women dominated universities by, IIRC, 1942-43 ... even Medicine, Law and Engineering ... women were encouraged to take up industrial jobs, and even served as Flak/Searchlight crews, many being killed "in the line of duty" in the latter role ... of course, it wasn't done in any consistently useful way (even the University enrolments would only have started coming online by the end of the war).

So the Nazis could bend to reality in some ways ... just not well enough.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 17

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/12/2012 9:03:34 AM

battlevonwar

Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline

Definitely, though look at all that luck? Had the Germans used their brains instead of the fanatical insane ideology. i.e. tons of undesirables could have been conscripted or brought to Industrial/high end scientific work. Millions and Millions of Eastern European Races to serve the Military gladly welcoming with open arms freedom from an extremely oppressive regime.

Plus as I've read, heard...Germany didn't go into full wartime production? I could never understand this nor comprehend the foolishness in it. You go to War, you cannot be worried about how the People at home are feeling, you're committed. Arrogance all over the board...

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

All valid points but my main thrust regarding Germany inefficiency stands. Slave Labor wasteful in labor and resources. The centralized economy added to the problem, and I agree they were severely limited by lack of resources. They didn't have enough of nearly anything from resources to manpower (except perhaps coal) and were wasteful in many cases misusing what they had. The cruel raciest policies caused some of the most decisive manpower losses before the war even began. Much of the top scientific talent the allies had (Manhattan Project on down) were essentially political refugees from fascist regimes. The Nazi purge of talented manpower was had significant adverse effects on their entire economy, not unlike Stalin's purge of military leadership.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 18

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/18/2012 8:53:14 AM

doomtrader

Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

How about some simpler questions?
FOr example how many Pz IV Germans built in 1942?

_____________________________

(in reply to battlevonwar)

Post #: 19

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/25/2012 8:01:29 AM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

Since no one answered without checking... 880 in 1942 of a total production of 9,870 per Wikipedia (other sources give total of just over 13,000 for all years)
The 2nd most produced German Tank...

Which German tank had more produced?

On the allied side production of M4 Sherman variants exceeded 50,000

What tank variant was produced in even larger numbers?

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/25/2012 8:05:34 AM >

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 20

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/25/2012 9:35:23 AM

Josh

Posts: 2576
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline

Uhm, that would be then PzKpfw III then?

And the one that got even more produced would be the T-34 then?

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 21

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/25/2012 10:42:02 PM

parusski

Posts: 4804
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Jackson Tn
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Since no one answered without checking... 880 in 1942 of a total production of 9,870 per Wikipedia (other sources give total of just over 13,000 for all years)
The 2nd most produced German Tank...

Which German tank had more produced?

On the allied side production of M4 Sherman variants exceeded 50,000

What tank variant was produced in even larger numbers?

The Germans produced around 16,000 PzKpfw III's.

_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 22

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/26/2012 12:29:07 AM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

T-34: 84000 ... including postwar production
T-54/55: 85000 to 100000 (est) entirely postwar, but you didn't specify (not including Chicom copies)

No other tanks come close, AIUI.

Note, however, that T-34 *readiness rate* (i.e. the number of tanks actually *running* at any given time was around 40-50% of the total available during the war, while the readiness rate for Shermans, and, one presumes, British tanks as well, was on the order of 80-90%) ... some parts on the T-34 had a MTBF of 2.5 hours, and many went into action with a spare gearbox strapped to the back deck because the gearbox was so ... iffy ...

There's a reason the Russians equipped an entire Guards Mechanised Army with US vehicles (Shermans, M-3 Halftracks, Trucks etc.) ... and, as you probably know, the number of GMAs was the limiter of the number of simultaneous offensives or offensive prongs that the Russians were able to undertake in 1944-45.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 23

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/26/2012 2:10:44 AM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

Correct and Correct. I see different numbers from different sources but PzIII variants were clearly top produced German tank. And LOTS and LOTS of T34's. in the range of 57,000 to 65,000+ for all variants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh

Uhm, that would be then PzKpfw III then?

And the one that got even more produced would be the T-34 then?

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to Josh)

Post #: 24

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/26/2012 2:20:22 AM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

Very good points re readiness. US numbers were always much higher than anyone else for just about all weapon systems. UK numbers were usually very good as well because of they shared the US logistics infrastructure and equipment. German reliability was pretty poor for tanks during the war by comparison as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

T-34: 84000 ... including postwar production
T-54/55: 85000 to 100000 (est) entirely postwar, but you didn't specify (not including Chicom copies)

No other tanks come close, AIUI.

Note, however, that T-34 *readiness rate* (i.e. the number of tanks actually *running* at any given time was around 40-50% of the total available during the war, while the readiness rate for Shermans, and, one presumes, British tanks as well, was on the order of 80-90%) ... some parts on the T-34 had a MTBF of 2.5 hours, and many went into action with a spare gearbox strapped to the back deck because the gearbox was so ... iffy ...

There's a reason the Russians equipped an entire Guards Mechanised Army with US vehicles (Shermans, M-3 Halftracks, Trucks etc.) ... and, as you probably know, the number of GMAs was the limiter of the number of simultaneous offensives or offensive prongs that the Russians were able to undertake in 1944-45.

Phil

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 25

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/28/2012 4:25:33 AM

battlevonwar

Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline

Less reliable tanks with larger monsters, poor R&D, dwindling fuel supplies with Factories for Ball Bearings being crushed, along with say the distance from home and poor supply capabilities... All these could explain that to me.

I think anyone can plainly see that the Germans had to win early. They had to gamble. That or build an A-Bomb. I am shocked at the lack of numbers they had in tanks, when everyone refers to WW2 it's always a Panzer. Rather than a Russian-American Tank. Which were in far greater numbers and ultimately superior for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Very good points re readiness. US numbers were always much higher than anyone else for just about all weapon systems. UK numbers were usually very good as well because of they shared the US logistics infrastructure and equipment. German reliability was pretty poor for tanks during the war by comparison as well.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 26

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/28/2012 7:45:25 AM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

These games always seem to make A-Bomb an option for 'everyone' This is Totally ridiculous... NO one was building an A-Bomb in WW2 except the US. It just wasn't going to happen. They didn't know this at the time of course and the US had the advantage of access to top UK and Commonwealth talent plus the pool of 'Brain Drain'* refugee talent. Even the USSR as an emerging superpower with a much larger economy than Germany (when they got it) only managed by the end of August, 1949 (over 4 years after the US) and then on the espionage coattails of the US project Germany for had not the technical capability infrastructure or raw materials to even come close.

After the war it was clear that Germany if left alone and if they had made it a national priority they might have had 'The Bomb' by the early 1950's. As it was the Japanese were as close or closer than Germany ever got (which is to say no where) The resources expended by the US Manhattan Project would have absorbed nearly the entire German GDP even had they the know how and materials.

An example of the infrastructure disparity is the Grand Coulee Dam located (not coincidentally) near the (then) secret Hanford Nuclear Project. ALONE it generated the equivalent of about 10% of TOTAL peak German electric production.

* Some of the key Manhattan Project scientific talent were 'from' Italy, Hungary and Germany, but they had all relocated away from Fascism before the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Less reliable tanks with larger monsters, poor R&D, dwindling fuel supplies with Factories for Ball Bearings being crushed, along with say the distance from home and poor supply capabilities... All these could explain that to me.

I think anyone can plainly see that the Germans had to win early. They had to gamble. That or build an A-Bomb. I am shocked at the lack of numbers they had in tanks, when everyone refers to WW2 it's always a Panzer. Rather than a Russian-American Tank. Which were in far greater numbers and ultimately superior for that.

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/28/2012 7:58:15 AM >

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to battlevonwar)

Post #: 27

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/28/2012 8:22:08 AM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

Looking at the production economic realities show that for Germany WW2 was a Kobayashi Maru scenario.

Practically speaking like Japan they were doomed by the initial conditions. Its actually pretty amazing they did as well and lasted as long as they did. The monumental errors they made were only exceeded those of their opponents. A little early allied backbone or a bit less Soviet gullibility and the war might have been shorter. The invincible 3rd Reich is just a myth...

But you need a bit of myth to make a WW 2 game playable so Like ToF every design I have seen boosts Germany enough to give them at least the chance to actually defeat the US USSR and UK. Faced with sufficient political tenacity by their opponents they were doomed.

Like Japan's bad bet on the US reaction Germany gambled on the UK suing for peace. The only 'sure victory' was against Poland and that took a LOT of what Germany had at the time. Any of several slightly different decisions and they could have been stopped by France. Each campaign was a 'must win quick long shot' with ever poorer odds for Germany, but the Allies and USSR only had to not loose.

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 4/28/2012 8:24:05 AM >

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 28

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/28/2012 8:50:11 AM

battlevonwar

Posts: 1041
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline

I agree and totally disagree, on both that Germany winning WW2 was very fictional on both ends. A tiny nation of under a hundred million with very modest Industry defeating the Three Largest Economic Super Powers in the World. The point being that the GHC was very skeptical about even defeating Poland. You're right about this. I think they were in shock about France. It is a classic Scenario of blunder after blunder... Both with "mobilization and choices." Plus the Germans were gambling and winning, that ran out, when they had their butts handed to them by 1941, game over.

At that point though, before they were foolish enough to push their Engines too far, they had gambled and won enough to make some realistic decisions. In this I believe that something else would be possible and one can never predict the outcome. You also forget we think in the constraints of history books. Had The USSR collapsed and it was very likely without help there eventually would be a lot to worry about. That gamble nearly payed off. People disagree with this, but I cannot believe them. Where tens of millions perish, how much further do you have to drive your Armies?

Atom Bombs complete fiction? Allies deeply feared a dirty bomb on the Beaches of Normandy. Plus this game runs a lot longer than 1945. Granted even in TOF it's not practical for Germany to research an A-Bomb so it is very revealing. It would have been the wise decision for that nation and not start a war you cannot win.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)

Post #: 29

RE: Economics Quiz - 4/28/2012 9:28:42 AM

JLPOWELL

Posts: 411
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline

Nukes are an area I know a bit about... The allies 'feared' lots of things. In this case non existent things. The 'fear' in this case was not a 'dirty atom bomb' but use of radioactive material to contaminate an area (technically much easier than building a bomb) But like poison gas it would be pretty indiscriminate and defensive measures (albeit limited) can be taken. In any case the Germans did not (unknown to the allies in 1944) have the capacity.

BTW one of terrorist scenarios some worry about today is a so called 'dirty bomb' scattering a material like Cesium-137 as contamination... LOL I likely just got this thread flagged by NSA and Homeland security.

_____________________________

"Don�t you think that if I were wrong, I�d know it?"

(in reply to battlevonwar)

Post #: 30