VSWG
Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
According to John Ellis’ book World War II a Statistical Survey, the entire allied warring world combined produced 497.1 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945. Figures for the US are included, but only between 1942 and 1945 (the years they were at war). In that short period the US produced 334.5 m. metric tons of crude steel.
That means the rest of the allied warring world only produced 162.6 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945. The US more than doubled that figure in just three years, so I seriously doubt steel shortages are what caused the drop-off of US merchant ship production. The Axis warring world produced 196.5 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945, so the US in just three years almost out-produced the rest of the warring world combined.
If you review production figures for every major equipment item produced in the US, you’ll see a dramatic decrease across the board after 1943. This is because the US had won the upper hand in the Atlantic and over the skies of Germany. Basically the attrition war at sea and in the air was won by 43 and all that remained, was for us to build up for the land invasion to finish off Germany.
After 43 production figures dropped to a level that allowed the US to maintain current force levels and meet lend lease commitments. There was no longer a need to rapidly increase force levels. US force levels still grew in 44, just at a much slower pace than before.
I agree that some of the shipyard capacity went into producing Victory ships, but only 6 of the 17 shipyards that produced Liberty ships built any Victory ships.
http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/ussbldrs/wwii/merchantsbldg.htm
I already mentioned all this in the last paragraph of post #661. As I said, I completely agree with you that the US could have build a lot more ships, I just don't want to see this implemented by another respawn rule. For now I'm willing to believe that the new OOB will prevent any AK shortage for the Allies. If not, I hope they find a different solution, like adding the ships that were canceled by the Maritime Commission to the OOB, and implementing some trigger for their arrival, and a cost.
quote:
As to your CV respawn exploit, you seem to think the allies are gaining some benefit by the respawn, when in fact they are being short changed big time. These are the Essex class hulls that were renamed in honor of lost combatants during the war.
CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943
As you can see, they were all laid down long before their earlier namesakes were sunk. So in fact the allies get hosed because unless they lose the earlier namesakes, they don’t get these hulls. I agree CV respawns should be taken out. But these hulls need to be added to the 1943 CV arrivals to make things historically correct. As things stand now, the allies lose the power of 4 CV’s in 1943 whether they lose the earlier carriers or not.
Believe me, I know all that. 
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 
If a possible AK shortage is solved by a better OOB then this is, of course, the best solution. Good news!
It's still 'wrong' though... 
What I would like, but I realise that it is not going to happen is that the game keeps the correct number of hulls and for there to be the option of a new ship being renamed whilst she is being built. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread