LeuCeaMia

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

• 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

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944

• Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle

UK

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 +

US

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

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

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944

• 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.

UK

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 +

US

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)

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944

• Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle

UK

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

US

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

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

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944

• Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle

UK

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

US

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

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

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944

• Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle

UK

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

US

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

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

From a Wa Pruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944

• Estimates with Targets at a 30 degree sidewards angle

UK

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

US

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

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

VK 20

Daimler

Krupp

MAN

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

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

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

• M1928
• T3(M1931)

M4

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Per capita GDP in 1990 Geary-Khamis dollars

	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

	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