How really big the USA's industrial output compared to each

>>2547413

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

>>2547413
A magnitude of ten.

Americans tend to have a vested interest in minimising that power disparity so they can pretend that the Pacific War was some noble relatively balanced power struggle.

File: WW2 production land forces.png (46KB, 1084x493px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1084x493px

>>2547413
the US did possess the lion's share of all production in WW2, with the only nation who could even the ballpark of production in any area was the USSR, who only managed to outproduce the US in number of tanks.

looking at just land force materiel, the US produced just about double what all the Axis powers could produce combined, and that's ignoring Naval and Air production.

File: WW2 production air forces.png (35KB, 1050x390px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1050x390px

>>2547704
air forces

File: WW2 production naval forces.png (38KB, 1147x455px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1147x455px

>>2547713
naval forces

File: europe-us-overlay-map.jpg (60KB, 625x469px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 625x469px

>>2547413
>How really big the USA's industrial output compared to each other single participant in WW2?

>>2547461
>141 aircraft carriers in a little over 3 years

That's pretty amazing desu

>>2547738
Meaningless map in the context of manufacturing capacity. Yes we know the US is large, mostly empty, and full of endless rows of cornfields.

>>2547746
Most of them were 10k ton or so baby flattops so it is somewhat less impressive than it looks at the first glance.

>>2547905
17 Essexes before the end of the war is a pretty big deal, though.

>>2547413
Mind boggling.
Game changing.
War winning.

File: how_you_look_to_the_japs.jpg (1MB, 1383x3522px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1383x3522px

>>2547481
>Americans tend to have a vested interest in minimising that power disparity so they can pretend that the Pacific War was some noble relatively balanced power struggle.

Are you implying the Japanese didn't understand this?

>>2548605

>as opposed to the English, whom they hold full of guile and treachery

that's true

>>2547704
did mortars not play a big role in american tactical doctrine or something?
i only ask because they only produced half of what their allies did

File: 1464878615149.jpg (447KB, 1300x998px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1300x998px

>tfw you will never bring home a living wage working for a righteous cause
;_;

>>2550219
Not really. They saw a good amount of action in the Pacific where having artillery wasn't always feasible, but American artillery tactics were so far above and beyond anyone else had there was no real point in using mortars over artillery.

>>2547413
The whored out anything within 10k clicks of the place so pretty much equaled the rest combined. Never again.

>>2550216
Even the japs knew about the perfidious albion

>>2550422
Say again in English?

>>2550438
They should considering their revolution was pretty much a proxy war between the British and French.

>>2550438
It takes a perfidious islandjew to recognize another prefidious islandjew.

>>2550441
They*

>>2547750
>Yes we know the US is large, mostly empty, and full of endless rows of cornfields.

Actually a lot of it is full of mines, refineries, and oil fields. The US had a vast amount of raw materials that they could easily supply their industry with, unlike the Soviets (who had absolutely atrocious infrastructure, and who were partially occupied for much of the war) and Britain (who had to ship almost everything in from the empire).

The USA had the advantage of massive supplies of raw materials granted by such a large and easily used country, without being invaded or any of the other downsides that the other 2 major powers experienced.

Not getting bombed constantly for 5 years and having two giant moats helps with production numbers.

>>2550585
The U.S. was outproducing Europe since the 1880s. U.S. Steel alone was producing the lion's share of steel across the entire globe in the 1890s.