Jump to content

We Need Your Help - Become a Site Supporter

For 16 years we've been delivering WWII discussion and research, help support our efforts for the next 16 years. Become a WW2 Forums Patron!

- - - - -

D Day in 1943.

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#51 RichTO90


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 06:18 AM

We equipped our military AND did Lend-Lease. Without L-L we'd have had much less need for war-oriented industry. 


Exactly. And created 95 ground force divisions, while building 49,000 M4 Medium Tanks...of which a third or so we gave away as Lend-Lease. So if we wanted to double the number of our own divisions, doesn't that mean that we need to double the 32,000 odd M4 Medium Tanks we kept? Which means we still need the manpower in the factories to build 64,000 instead of 49,000 tanks.


See what I meant? It was a balancing act and the main give and take was manpower versus manufacturing output and unit output. Yes, the US could have done much more, by mobilizing as much as the Germans or Soviets, but if we had it likely would have crippled the postwar economy and thus the worldwide postwar reconstruction.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users