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

What happened to this article?

In march 2014 this article looked respectable and discussed differences, such as Germany having a numbers inferiority in practically every piece of lethal war materiel apart from submarines (and maybe also landmines and possibly also high altitude anti-aircraft guns such as the 88mm (see here) but this article has never even listed them, as if land mine production meant nothing and in respect to AA guns they're instead seemingly grouped into the category of "artillery"). The article in March also didn't just touch on lend lease in passing, but delved right into it and explained with references who got what from the US, with lend lease being obviously wedlocked to any discussion of military production during WWII, why was this all removed? Lend-lease segued nicely into a discussion of the katyusha rocket(MLRS) system produced by the USSR with frequently a US truck chassis, the German counterpart the nebelwerfer was more accurate but could not lay down the same kind of rapidly mobile massed barrage fire as the Katyusha etc.

Other topics sorely missing in this article is the late turn over to a complete total war economy in the Nazi Reich, much too late ~1944, other things to discuss is their synthetic gasoline facilities, their advanced Chemical and engineering divisions producing tabun nerve gas -(never used in WWII combat), the V1 cruise missile, the super expensive V2 rocket etc, their use of slave labor etc. The phenomenal construction rate of the Ilyushin Il-2 & B-24 Liberator bombers which still hold production rate records also bizarrely isn't even getting so much as a mention here on this article?

The design choices which hindered productivity made by the German's which affected the production rates of - not only ersatz goods but the complex Tiger I tanks over the better all round Panther tank etc, discussion of the Bismarck battleship, the use of picric acid over the then more modern TNT by the Japanese, the M1 Garand being leaps and bounds over all the other general issue rifles of the war, the M3 Grease gun replacing the Thompson sub-machine gun and with the M3 gun, general sheet metal & spot welding guns like the Sten and (PPS)PPSh entering service during the war.

Not to mention the panzerfaust, an example of desperate production. Tanks in World War II - is a good article on the US outproducing all other countries. 92.251.161.43 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

American Aircraft Carrier Production

I am confused as to how a number greater than 100 was extrapolated in terms of US aircraft carrier production.

What's up with the graphs?

Literally some of the worst graphs I have ever seen. Horribly organized, patterned, and utilized. Some of them are even blatantly false. 98.184.183.60 (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Rubber

Could anyone add the vital production of rubber to the overview? There are several decent papers on it. I only know the Raj and Far East of the British Empire was the largest producer alongside the Netherlands. I feel it deserves to be listed.--Simen113 (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Japanese fighter aircraft

Omits the Nakajima Ki.43 (Oscar), second most-produced fighter with 5,900+ built.