this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
80 points (98.8% liked)
chapotraphouse
13473 readers
1 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ahh yes, the map you get when you ignore all the raw material inputs, fuel, logistics, and shipbuilding contracts
For raw material inputs, Pennsylvania had enormous amounts of coal, and a lot of iron.
For logistics, the whole northeast area had the most developed rail network in the country at the time alongside extensive canals.
For shipbuilding contracts, New York and Boston accounted for a big chunk of the US's total ship production.
Detroit alone produced something like half of all the war material in the US.
california is not near 10%, and washington and oregon aren't even on it, despite the large aircraft and naval productions located there. on the east coast, virginia is that tiny slither despite Newport News naval yard. Texas should be bigger simply by Houston's naval yards.
im a little biased because i can still see the carcass of industrial production out west though
Oregon's aircraft production at the time this map was produced was negligible as far as I can tell. The naval production in terms of tonnage of all the west coast states was significant, but didn't come close to matching the east coast yards.
Am am somewhat surprised by the size of Louisiana and Texas considering that they both produced a lot of ships, but tonnage is king I guess.
A lot of the west coast's industry was only developed towards the end of the war and post-war.