Tables extracted from a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944

edit
  • These are estimates with targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle.
  • The IS-122 is also known as the IS-2 model 1943.
  • The British Ordnance QF 75 mm is listed as and is assumed to perform exactly like the 75 mm M3.
  • The Sherman A4 is listed as mounting the 76 mm, which it never did.
  • The Sherman A4 and A2 are both welded hull Shermans but it is not apparent whether they are the small( 56 deg glacis) or large hatch (47 degree glacis) variety.

Stug III

edit

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944[1]

  • Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle
Gun 7.5 cm StuK 40 75 mm M3 7.5 cm StuK 40 75 mm M3
Target Cromwell Stug III Churchill Stug III
Front
Turret 1000 m 700 m
Mantlet 1600 m 100 m 500 m 100 m
DFP or Glacis 1800 m 100 m 300 m 100 m
Nose 1400 m 100 m 300 m 100 m
Side
Turret 1800 m 700 m
Super 3000 m 3000 m 1500 m 3000 m
Hull 1800 m 3000 m 1500 m 3000 m
Rear
Turret 2100 m 1300 m
Hull 3500 m + 3500 m + 2800 m 3500 m +
Gun 7.5 cm StuK 40 75 mm M3 7.5 cm StuK 40 76 mm M1A1
Target M4A2 Stug III M4A4 Stug III
Front
Turret 1000 m 1000 m
Mantlet 100 m 100 m 100 m 1500 m
DFP or Glacis 0 m 100 m 0 m 1700 m
Nose 1300 m 100 m 1300 m 1600 m
Side
Turret 3000 m 3000 m
Super 3500 m + 3000 m 3500 m + 3500 m +
Hull 3500 m + 3000 m 3500 m + 3500 m +
Rear
Turret 3000 m 3000 m
Hull 3500 m + 3500 m + 3500 m + 3500 m +

USSR

edit
Gun 7.5 cm StuK 40 85 mm S-53 7.5 cm StuK 40 122 mm A-19
Target T-34-85 Stug III IS-122 Stug III
Front
Turret 700 m 100 m
Mantlet 100 m 1100 m 0 m 2100 m
DFP or Glacis 0 m 1500 m 0 m 2700 m
Nose 0 m 1400 m 100 m 2700 m
Side
Turret 1300 m 300 m
Super 1400 m 3500 m + 200 m 3500 m +
Hull 3200 m 3500 m + 500 m 3500 m +
Rear
Turret 1800 m 0 m
Hull 1000 m 3500 m + 100 m 3500 m +

Panzer IV

edit

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944[2]

  • Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle
  • Wa Pruef 1 made an error when calculating the front mantlet and turret of the Panzer IV by using 80 mm rather than 50 mm. The 75 mm M3 could penetrate the turret front and gun mantlet at 1500 m.
Gun 7.5 cm KwK 40 75 mm M3 7.5 cm KwK 40 75 mm M3
Target Cromwell Panzer IV Churchill Panzer IV
Front
Turret 1000 m 100 m 700 m 100 m
Mantlet 1600 m 100 m 500 m 100 m
DFP or Glacis 1800 m 100 m 300 m 100 m
Nose 1400 m 100 m 100 m 100 m
Side
Turret 1800 m 3000 m 3000 m 3000 m
Super 3000 m 3000 m 3000 m 3000 m
Hull 1800 m 3000 m 3000 m 3000 m
Rear
Turret 2100 m 3300 m 1300 m 3300 m
Hull 3500 m + 3500 m + 2800 m 3500 m +
Gun 7.5 cm KwK 40 75 mm M3 7.5 cm KwK 40 76 mm M1A1
Target M4A2 Panzer IV M4A4 Panzer IV
Front
Turret 1000 m 100 m 1000 m 1700 m
Mantlet 100 m 100 m 100 m 1500 m
DFP or Glacis 0 m 100 m 0 m 1700 m
Nose 1300 m 100 m 1300 m 1600 m
Side
Turret 3000 m 3000 m 3000 m 3500 m +
Super 3500 m + 3000 m 3500 m + 3500 m +
Hull 3500 m + 3000 m 3500 m + 3500 m +
Rear
Turret 3000 m 3300 m 3000 m 3500 m +
Hull 3500 m + 3500 m + 3500 m + 3500 m +

Jagdpanzer 38(t)

edit

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944[3][note 1]

  • Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle
Gun 7.5 cm Pak 39 75 mm M3 7.5 cm Pak 39 75 mm M3
Target Cromwell Jagdpz.38 Churchill Jagdpz.38
Front
Turret 1000 m 1700 m
Mantlet 1600 m 0 m 1400 m 0 m
DFP or Glacis 1800 m 0 m 1300 m 0 m
Nose 1400 m 0 m 1100 m 0 m
Side
Turret 1800 m 1700 m
Super 3000 m 3000 m 3000 m 2600 m
Hull 1800 m 3500 m + 3000 m 3500 m
Rear
Turret 2100 m 2600 m
Hull 3500 m + 3500 m + 3500 m + 3400 m
Gun 7.5 cm Pak 39 75 mm M3 7.5 cm Pak 39 76 mm M1A1
Target M4A2 Jagdpz.38 M4A4 Jagdpz.38
Front
Turret 1000 m 1000 m
Mantlet 100 m 0 m 100 m 100 m
DFP or Glacis 0 m 100 m 0 m 0 m
Nose 1300 m 0 m 1300 m 800 m
Side
Turret 3000 m 3000 m
Super 3500 m + 3000 m 3500 m + 3500 m +
Hull 3500 m + 3500 m + 3500 m + 3500 m +
Rear
Turret 3000 m 3000 m
Hull 3500 m + 3500 m + 3500 m + 3500 m +

USSR

edit
Gun 7.5 cm Pak 39 85 mm S-53 7.5 cm Pak 39 122 mm A-19
Target T-34-85 Jagdpz.38 IS-122 Jagdpz.38
Front
Turret 700 m 100 m
Mantlet 100 m 100 m 0 m 500 m
DFP or Glacis 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m
Nose 0 m 400 m 100 m 1200 m
Side
Turret 1300 m 300 m
Super 1400 m 3500 m + 200 m 3500 m +
Hull 3200 m 3500 m + 500 m 3500 m +
Rear
Turret 1800 m 0 m
Hull 1000 m 3500 m + 100 m 3500 m

Panther

edit

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944[4]

  • Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle
Gun 7.5 cm KwK 42 75 mm M3 7.5 cm KwK 42 75 mm M3
Target Cromwell Panther Chuchill Panther
Front
Turret 2500 m 0 m 2000 m 0 m
Mantlet 3000 m 0 m 2000 m 0 m
DFP or Glacis 3400 m 0 m 1700 m 0 m
Nose 2900 m 0 m 1700 m 0 m
Side
Turret 3300 m 1500 m 2000 m 1500 m
Super 3500 m + 400 m 3000 m 400 m
Hull 3400 m 2600 m 3000 m 2600 m
Rear
Turret 3500 m + 1500 m 2800 m 1500 m
Hull 3500 m + 1500 m 3500 m + 1500 m
Gun 7.5 cm KwK 42 75 mm M3 7.5 cm KwK 42 76 mm M1A1
Target M4A2 Panther M4A4 Panther
Front
Turret 2500 m 0 m 2500 m 700 m
Mantlet 1000 m 0 m 1000 m 100 m
DFP or Glacis 100 m 0 m 100 m 0 m
Nose 2800 m 0 m 2800 m 0 m
Side
Turret 3500 m + 1500 m 3500 m + 3500 m +
Super 3500 m + 400 m 3500 m + 2800 m
Hull 3500 m + 2600 m 3500 m + 3500 m +
Rear
Turret 3500 m + 1500 m 3500 m + 3500 m +
Hull 3500 m + 1500 m 3500 m + 3500 m +

USSR

edit
Gun 7.5 cm KwK 42 85 mm S-53 7.5 cm KwK 42 122 mm A-19
Target T-34-85 Panther IS-122 Panther
Front
Turret 2000 m 500 m 800 m 1500 m
Mantlet 1200 m 0 m 400 m 500 m
DFP or Glacis 300 m 0 m 600 m 0 m
Nose 300 m 0 m 1000 m 100 m
Side
Turret 2700 m 3400 m 1600 m 3500 m +
Super 2900 m 2400 m 1600 m 3500 m +
Hull 3500 m + 3500 m + 2000 m 3500 m +
Rear
Turret 3300 m 3400 m 400 m 3500 m +
Hull 2300 m 3400 m 1000 m 3500 m +

Tiger

edit

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944[5]

  • Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle
Gun 8.8 cm KwK 36 75 mm M3 8.8 cm KwK 36 75 mm M3
Target Cromwell Tiger Churchill Tiger
Front
Turret 2000 m 0 m 1400 m 0 m
Mantlet 2700 m 0 m 1400 m 0 m
DFP or Glacis 3500 m 0 m 1300 m 0 m
Nose 2500 m 0 m 1100 m 0 m
Side
Turret 3400 m 100 m 1700 m 100 m
Super 3500 m + 100 m 3000 m 100 m
Hull 3500 m 900 m 3000 m 900 m
Rear
Turret 3500 m + 100 m 2600 m 100 m
Hull 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 0 m
Gun 8.8 cm KwK 36 75 mm M3 8.8 cm KwK 36 76 mm M1A1
Target M4A2 Tiger M4A4 Tiger
Front
Turret 1800 m 0 m 1800 m 700 m
Mantlet 200 m 0 m 200 m 100 m
DFP or Glacis 0 m 0 m 0 m 600 m
Nose 2100 m 0 m 2100 m 400 m
Side
Turret 3500 m + 100 m 3500 m + 1800 m
Super 3500 m + 100 m 3500 m + 1800 m
Hull 3500 m 900 m 3500 m + 3200 m
Rear
Turret 3500 m + 100 m 3500 m + 1800 m
Hull 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 1700 m

USSR

edit
Gun 8.8 cm KwK 36 85 mm S-53 8.8 cm KwK 36 122 mm A-19
Target T-34-85 Tiger IS-122 Tiger
Front
Turret 1400 m 500 m 100 m 1500 m
Mantlet 400 m 0 m 100 m 500 m
DFP or Glacis 100 m 300 m 100 m 1300 m
Nose 100 m 200 m 300 m 1000 m
Side
Turret 2200 m 1600 m 1000 m 2900 m
Super 2100 m 1600 m 1000 m 2900 m
Hull 3500 m + 2900 m 1500 m 3500 m +
Rear
Turret 3200 m 1600 m 100 m 2900 m
Hull 2100 m 1500 m 300 m 2700 m

Tiger Ausf B

edit

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944[6]

  • Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle
Gun 8.8 cm KwK 43 75 mm M3 8.8 cm KwK 43 75 mm M3
Target Cromwell Tiger B Chuchill Tiger B
Front
Turret 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 0 m
Mantlet 3500 m + 0 m 2600 m 0 m
DFP or Glacis 3500 m + 0 m 2000 m 0 m
Nose 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 0 m
Side
Turret 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 0 m
Super 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 0 m
Hull 3500 m + 100 m 3500 m + 100 m
Rear
Turret 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 0 m
Hull 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 0 m
Gun 8.8 cm KwK 43 75 mm M3 8.8 cm KwK 43 76 mm M1A1
Target M4A2 Tiger B M4A4 Tiger B
Front
Turret 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 0 m
Mantlet 2600 m 0 m 2600 m 0 m
DFP or Glacis 2000 m 0 m 2000 m 0 m
Nose 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 0 m
Side
Turret 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 1100 m
Super 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 900 m
Hull 3500 m + 100 m 3500 m + 1800 m
Rear
Turret 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 400 m
Hull 3500 m + 0 m 3500 m + 400 m

USSR

edit
Gun 8.8 cm KwK 43 85 mm S-53 8.8 cm KwK 43 122 mm A-19
Target T-34-85 Tiger B IS-122 Tiger B
Front
Turret 3500 m + 0 m 2300 m 0 m
Mantlet 2800 m 0 m 1800 m 0 m
DFP or Glacis 2600 m 0 m 2100 m 0 m
Nose 2600 m 0 m 2600 m 0 m
Side
Turret 3500 m + 800 m 3400 m 1800 m
Super 3500 m + 500 m 3400 m 1400 m
Hull 3500 m + 1600 m + 3500 m + 2900 m
Rear
Turret 3500 m + 100 m 1800 m 900 m
Hull 3500 m + 100 m 2500 m 900 m

Notes

edit
  1. ^ Retained Jentz's inconsistent Churchill data: listed penetration figures for Pak 39 and StuK 40 are the same yet the Pak penetrates it from further. The other targets also retain the same figures as that against StuK 40.

References

edit
  1. ^ Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (2001). Sturmgeschutz III and IV 1942-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 21. ISBN 1841761826. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  2. ^ Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (2001). Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. G, H and J 1942-45. Osprey Publishing. pp. 20–21. ISBN 1841761826. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  3. ^ Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (2001). Jagdpanzer 38 'Hetzer', 1944-45. Osprey Publishing. pp. 21–22. ISBN 1841761354.
  4. ^ Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (1995). Germany's Panther Tank. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. pp. 127–128. ISBN 0887408125.
  5. ^ Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (1993). Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 20. ISBN 1855323370. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  6. ^ Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (1993). Kingtiger Heavy Tank 1942-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 35. ISBN 185532282X.

VK 20

edit
DaimlerKruppMAN
VK 20.01(III)VK 20.01(IV)
VK 20.01(D)VK 20.01(K)VK 20.01(M)
VK 20.02(K)VK 20.02(M)
VK 23.01(K)VK 24.01(M)
VK 30.01(D)VK 30.01(M)
VK 30.02(M)


10 miles per hour (16 km/h)

A-43

edit

http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/14-experimental/55-t-34m.html

http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/tanks/t-34m.php

This was being developed in order to improve the reliability and operational capabilities of the T-34 tank. Development work on this ceased as the Second World War broke out.

http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/tanks/t-43.php

The tank was developed in order to enhance the operational capabilities, protection and ease of production in comparison with the T-34 tank building on the developments elaborated when designing the T-34M in 1941. A prototype vehicle was manufactured and subjected to trials. The T-43 was never accepted for service.

http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/history4-6.php

By the end of 1940, in spite of large amount of work required for the final elaboration of the T-34 tank, the Design Bureau began working on its upgrade. The modernised specimen, which was designated the T-34M, envisaged large enhancement of armour protection of the hull and turret, torsion shafts in the suspension instead of springs and road wheels with internal shock absorption, increased amount of fuel, projectiles, cartridges, etc. The drawings and technical documentation of the T-34M tank were completely prepared and sent for manufacturing a prototype. The Zhdanov Metallurgical Plant manufactured armour plates for the hull of the T-34M tank (five sets) and delivered them to Plant No. 183. However, early in 1941 work on the T-34M tank virtually ceased as the production facilities were extremely busy with the series production of T-34 tanks.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/05/tank-plans-for-1941.html

Going through unfulfilled orders, another unbuilt tank pops up, the T-34M. The T-34M (factory designation A-43) was a modernized version of the T-34, with features that would be seen in Soviet medium tanks several years after, like torsion bars, a 5 man crew, a commander's cupola, a planetary gear transmission, and internal shock absorption.

The scan is a bit cut off, but the production of T-34s wanes to only 40 units over the month of September, and is fully replaced by T-34Ms by October. It is interesting to point out that 380 out of the 800 T-34Ms were armed with a ZiS-4 gun, instead of the F-34 gun that the overwhelming majority of T-34s received. 300 of the tanks were also to be equipped with a flamethrower, aside from their main guns (65 F-34 armed T-34Ms and 235 T-34Ms with a ZiS-4). That was one way of compensating for the deficiencies of the 57 mm HE shell.

We also see that, unlike the KV-3, the T-34M is not that much more expensive than the tank it is replacing. As for the prices themselves, they shouldn't be relied on in any kind of analysis. The document itself notes that these prices are just approximate (since production has not started yet). Additionally, this is way before most simplification and cost-cutting measures were taken. According to Ural Train Factory (UVZ) data, a T-34 cost 246 900 rubles in 1941, and 142 100 rubles in 1944.

Christie Tanks

edit

T3

http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/tanks_Christie_T3.aspx


http://asia.rbth.com/defence/2015/05/18/christies_chassis_an_american_tank_for_the_soviets_46135.html

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/firefly1002000/christory.html&date=2009-10-25+22:14:20

Armored Thunderbolt Steven Zaloga

The Christie T3 medium tank was never popular in U.S. Army service because of its technical problems. Two of the seven purchased are seen here serving with the 67th Infantry (Tanks) during summer war games

The first medium tank acquired after World War I was the Christie M1931, known as the convertible medium tank T3 in U.S. Army service. It had an advanced spring suspension and was designed to run on its wheels for high speed on roads or on its tracks for cross-country travel

Because of the unreliability of the Christie tank, Rock Island Arsenal proceeded to develop its own design as the M1 convertible medium tank, seen here during Third Army maneuvers at Fort Benning, Georgia, in April 1940. Only eighteen were built, and they were the only significant medium tanks manufactured by the U.S. Army in the 1930

The T-34 had a curious American heritage. In the early 1930s when the Soviet Union began to manufacture tanks, their designers scoured the world for suitable designs to copy. They eventually settled on the British Vickers six-ton, which later emerged in modified form as the T-26 infantry tank. They also bought a small number of light tanks designed by the eccentric American Walter Christie. The Christie tanks were well known for their speed, capable of more than forty miles per hour on the road. Part of this resulted from the use of a powerful Liberty aircraft engine, but Christie had also come up with a novel suspension system using large road wheels and substantial internal springs to provide a smooth ride in rough terrain. The Soviet Union eventually began to manufacture a modified copy of the Christie tank as the BT (the Russian acronym for fast tank) cavalry tank. The U.S. Army bought a handful of Christie tanks, calling them the T3 medium tank. They proved to be "hangar queens," too badly engineered for sustained use and not well enough armed to be worth the trouble. The BT tank saw combat in Spaincuriously enough, with some of the crews being American volunteers. When Soviet designers developed its replacement, they kept the Christie suspension with the new wider tracks but completely redesigned the armor, powerplant, and weapons. The result was the legendary T-34. While some tank buffs suggest that the U.S. Army's refusal to adopt the Christie tank cut off this promising avenue of tank development, the Christie tank by no means guaranteed success. It is often ignored that the other army to widely adopt the Christie suspension, Britain's, had a far poorer track record than the Soviets. The British used the Christie on a succession of cruiser tanks, including the A.13 cruiser tank, Covenanter, Crusader, and Cromwell. None of these matched the T-34, which suggests that features other than the Christie suspension determined the T-34's success.

Variants

edit
  • M1928
  • T3(M1931)

Confirmation has been received by reports from the Western Desert, indicating great satisfaction with the M4 Medium Tank (Sherman).

The position of the main gun in the turret has made possible the advantage of maximum cover in “hull down” position in addition to good observation by the tank commander. There is concrete evidence that the enemy tanks, including the special PzKw IV (with the long-barrelled higher velocity 75mm gun) has been destroyed up to ranges of 2,000 yards. All troops are indicating that there should be more Shermans sent out at the earliest opportunity.

At the present moment there is no information regarding the use of the stabilizer, and it is not expected that this will be available early as it is still the policy to fire from stationary ‘hull down’ position whenever the opportunity permits.

— Paraphrase of a cable received in Washington Nov 1 1942 from Major General, Middle East, to B.A.S. Washington

Kwk 40

edit

On 18 November 1941, Wa Pruf 4 ordered development of a new gun for the Pz.Kpfw.IV with the same capabilities as the Rheinmetall 7.5 cm Pak 44 L/46 (later renamed Pak 40). Originally known as the 7.5 cm Kw.K.44, the gun was developed jointly by Krupp in cooperation with Rheinmetall. Rheinmetall dealt with the interior ballistics and Krupp was responsible for the design. When firing a normal 6.8 kg APCBC-HE shell, it was to be capable of penetrating 80 mm of armour plate at 30 degrees at a range of 1,000 metres.

The recoil length of the 7.5 cm Pak 40 (900 mm) was too long for a Pz.Kpfw.IV turret, and at 969 mm the complete round was also too long. The new gun had to be designed with a shorter recoil and shorter rounds. The unaltered rifled gun tube (2,470.5 mm long) was retained from the 7.5 cm Pak 44 L/46, but a shorter loading chamber was added with a larger diameter, resulting in the 7.5 cm Kw.K.44 L/43. Shorter, thicker shell casings made loading the gun in the restricted confines of a closed turret far easier, and also allowed a greater number of rounds to be stowed in ammunition bins inside the tank.

Plans had been made to complete the first 30 7.5 cm Kw.K.40 L/43 in March, followed by 70 in April and 90 in May 1942. In actual fact, 18 were completed in March, 104 in April, and 56 in May 1942. Initially, a single-chamber, ball-shaped muzzle brake with two large side ports was fitted, which provided about 49 per cent of the braking ability of the recoil system.

American Era (1901–35)

edit
 
Manila in the 1900s

The results of the economy under the Americans were mixed. An initial high growth phase occurred during the 1910s due to the recovery from the wars with Spain and the US, and investment in agriculture. The Philippines would at first briefly outpace its neighbors. This would not last as growth fell behind in the later years. Stagnation in the late 1920s and beyond took place as access to US markets became restricted by protectionist quotas and fiscal restraints forestalled any further development in agriculture.[1]

The growth period can be attributed to the results of a crash program in agricultural modernization undertaken in 1910-1920. This in turn was done in order to address the growing shortfall in the supply of rice. The Philippines once a net exporter became an importer of rice as a result of the wars with the Spanish and later the Americans and by the reallocation of labour to export crops.[2]

The peg between the peso and dollar was enforced by law until 1975. It provided monetary stability for foreign investment inflows, which lead to 40% of all capital invested in manufacturing and commercial enterprises to be owned by foreign entities by 1938. On the other hand, this overvaluation of the peso would have a negative impact with foreign trade with the rest of Asia. Economic policy leading to independence would necessitated loosening trade links with the US. In order to achieve an internationally competitive exchange rate, the peso dollar link would have to be broken. The much belated move to a true floating exchange rate led to uncompetitive exports as such an import substitution strategy remained until significant currency devaluation opened up the opportunity for reorienting towards exports.[3]


In the late 1920s however, the government having been stripped of customs revenues due to the Payne-Aldridge Tariff Act faced fiscal constraints leading to the cancellation and downsizing of further infrastructure projects. The peso being pegged to the dollar at a fixed 2:1 rate became overvalued. As a result of this in addition to a slowdown in productivity, the GDP growth of the Philippines fell behind that of its neighbors such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.

The transition to economic independence was hindered by the developments in the latter years of the American colonial period. Infrastructure was in short supply wrought by the destruction of WW2 and a lack of fiscal revenue. [4]


A significant part of growth acceleration in these early years represents initiation of the agricultural modernization program along with recovery from wars with Spain and the U.S. Between 1913 and 1929, the Philippines continued to grow faster and achieve a higher percapita income than other Asian neighbors except Japan. Export volume grew between 4 and 6% annually and export earnings were growing even faster (Tables 1 and 5), thanks to the improvement in commodity prices. Population was increasing at over 2%, but cultivated area was expanding at nearly 3%, and there were significant gains in agricultural productivity as well.

The linking of the peso to the U.S dollar (by law until 1975) provided an environment of monetary stability that was intended to be conducive to substantial inflows of foreign investment (Kemerer, 1916). By 1938 over 40% of capital invested in manufacturing and commercial enterprises was foreign-owned (Statistical Yearbook, 1946, 271 and 314). Philippine consumers benefited from the inflow of cheap Asian manufactures that kept the cost of living low (Doeppers, 1991). However, the effect of peso overvaluation after 1930 proved dysfunctional with regard to its overall impact on foreign trade with Asia. It presented a problem in designing economic policy leading up to independence because loosening trade links with the U.S. required a more internationally competitive exchange rate, which could only be achieved by breaking the peso-dollar link. It was also a factor helping to account for the country’s long delay in shifting from an import substitution to an export promotion development strategy, as peso overvaluation and import substitution were mutually reinforcing policies.

The situation changed after 1930. Public infrastructure expenditures for agricultural modernization were reduced. Tariff-free Philippine sugar exports to the U.S. were capped at 921 thousand tons per year by the Sugar Act of 1934. The subsidy remained but growth was curbed. Another major export, manila hemp, felt the impact of competition with the appearance of nylon. Cultivated area continued to increase but at less than 1% annually.

A number of the causes of retardation in macroeconomic growth that surfaced during the latter years of the American period carried over into the independence period that began in 1946. A shortage of infrastructure, inadequate fiscal revenues and stagnant productivity are just a few of the problems with roots in the colonial era.

Commonwealth Era (1935–45)

edit

Per capita GDP in 1990 Geary-Khamis dollars[5]

edit
1900 1913 1929 1938 1950 1970 1990
Burma 647 635 NA 685 393 602 687
India 625 663 665 619 597 878 1316
Indonesia 745 917 1207 1136 916 1239 2525
Japan 1135 1334 1949 2356 1873 9448 18548
Philippines 1033 1418 1564 1497 1293 1766 2300
South Korea 850 948 1164 1649 876 2208 8977
Taiwan 759 794 1107 1320 922 2692 10324
Thailand 812 846 799 832 882 1596 4173

Annual growth rate of GDP per capita in 1990 Geary-Khamis dollars[6]

edit
1900-13 1913-29 1929-38 1938-50 1950-70 1970-90
Burma 1.19 2.42 -0.45 -3.65 4.12 2.82
India 0.96 0.59 0.49 0.93 3.98 4.27
Indonesia 2.79 2.85 0.77 -0.40 3.34 5.73
Japan 2.46 3.63 3.53 -0.66 9.20 4.22
Philippines 2.44 0.61 -0.47 -1.23 2.40 1.32
South Korea 2.05 3.10 5.04 -2.80 6.82 8.48
Taiwan 1.83 3.69 4.56 -0.26 8.43 8.36
Thailand 1.64 1.69 2.86 2.33 6.21 7.03
  1. ^ Hooley, Richard, 2005. "American economic policy in the Philippines, 1902-1940: Exploring a dark age in colonial statistics," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), page 465, June.
  2. ^ Hooley, Richard, 2005. "American economic policy in the Philippines, 1902-1940: Exploring a dark age in colonial statistics," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), page 467, June.
  3. ^ Hooley, Richard, 2005. "American economic policy in the Philippines, 1902-1940: Exploring a dark age in colonial statistics," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), page 479, June.
  4. ^ Hooley, Richard, 2005. "American economic policy in the Philippines, 1902-1940: Exploring a dark age in colonial statistics," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 464-488, June.
  5. ^ Hooley, Richard, 2005. "American economic policy in the Philippines, 1902-1940: Exploring a dark age in colonial statistics," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), page 477, June.
  6. ^ Hooley, Richard, 2005. "American economic policy in the Philippines, 1902-1940: Exploring a dark age in colonial statistics," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), page 467, June.