Lose isn't really as accurate since there was no surrender. Though Vietnam was a failure it wasn't a defeat... if that makes any sense.

For the US I mean, South Vietnam definitely "lost"

I'm no history buff, so i dont know about actual wars, but I would say that it could happen. A nation could have great weapons and gear and such, but if the military is not organized, educated, and strong, they could easily fall apart.

I would be inclined to guess the American Revolution on first examination, but I dunno to what extent foreign powers supporting the colonists produced war materials. Lemme try and find some data.

I think it depends on whether or not you count people (soldiers) as war materials.

The defeat of the Spanish Armada comes to mind. Spain was much wealthier than England at the time. But generally the more productive power has the advantage all other factors being equal.

Another example would be the Russo-Japanese war 1904-05. Russia's national income would have been greater but it still lost.
Paul Kennedy in The Rise and Fall of the Great Power cites national income figures for the powers in 1914:
Russia: $7 billion
Japan: $2 billion
He also cites some other stats from around that time, such as energy consumption. For example in 1900 and 1910 (millions of metric tones of coal equivalent)
Russia: 30 and 41
Japan: 4.6 and 15.4
Also Kennedy cites some kind of index "Total Industrial Potential of the Powers" (UK in 1900 = 100)
1900 and 1913
Russia: 47.5 and 76.6
Japan: 13 and 25.1

Sorry, just read the op properly - "war materials" not just general production.
Good question. I don't know the answer. Certainly Japan must have been behind Russia in 1901, but by 1914 it was ahead of Russia in gross tonnage of warships.
Certainly increasing production of war materials will benefit in the short term, militarily, but if the proportion of GDP is too great you will go broke in the mid to long term.
Italy spent big money on it's air force in the early 1930s, but by the WW2 started it had run out of money, and what had been cutting edge militarily a few years before became redundant.

The Russo-Japanese war is a good one. Although I have numbers for military spending and Japan outspent Russia in 1904. But Russia dwarfed Japan on every other indicator, especially iron & steel production.
Russia
Year Iron/Steel Military Exp. Military Pers. Energy Total Pop. Urban Pop.
1903 2434 48301 1160 34714 139100 7689
1904 2766 50305 1160 37584 141600 8064
1905 2266 170006 2365 33355 143900 8457

Japan
1903 40 15092 214 10718 45546 4470
1904 60 67273 218 12003 46135 4648
1905 71 73031 250 12397 46620 4833

My data only goes back to 1816, so I have no idea about Spanish Armada. You're probably right, though.

Overall production might matter less in wars which are primarily naval? That seems to be the common thread in the two examples given.

I would say generally speaking that overall production matters a lot in naval warfare. Naval power is very expensive.
There might also be a difference between a long protracted war and a short one like the Russo-Japanese war. Japan had the latest technology at a time when it was changing quickly, plus the Russians had to send their (obsolete) fleet such a long way, and they totally underestimated the Japanese. The Russians were caught off-guard on the that occasion.

Greco-Italian War 1940-1941.

The Italians won that war, didn't they? And Italian military expenditures would have been far greater that Greece's.

*the Germans won that war actually... Hitler was pissed that he had to send troops to deal with an Italian military operation that should have been quickly dealt with. However, I believe Fiedler was trying to point out that the Greeks couldn't be defeated by the Italians, but the Greeks certainly did not win that war.

I think it's fair to say the greeks defeated the italian invasion.

Yeh the greeks surrendered to the germans. Mussolini threw a tandrum and they had to restage the surrender ceremony to include the italians! :P crazy times.

What about the Napoleonic Wars? I believe France far outspent the British, because for a long time Great Britain was the only country at war with Napoleon, no? The Austrians, Russians and Prussians were out from 1806-1812 I believe, but don't quote me on that

Maybe the equation between industrial production and success in war only holds post-industrial revolution, so far anyway? Come on guys what about the Thermopylae?

"the Russo-Japanese war 1904-05" look at the logistics involved, the russian advantages were outweighed by having to send eveything across asia (by land?) while the japanese could go by sea, and had a much shorter distance to travel...

now sure, at the time, European powers were used to dominating non-European powers where-ever they went. The fact that Japan was quickly advancing and Russia comparatively weak for a European Empire is important for the elf-respect of the nations after the war... but for the production of the war.

Russia could not dedicate it's entire economy toward fighting Japan. And the logistic nightmare of sending an entire army to the far east of the Russian Empire likely had an impact...

The common thread seems to be how much war material can you commit to the theater? In the American revolution, Vietnam, and Russo-Japanese war the losing side had longer supply lines and had to maintain the majority of their forces in Europe to deter potential enemies there. George Washington, Ho Chi Minh, and Admiral Togo all could commit 100% of their forces to the fight.

Maybe the First Sino-Japanese War?

i guess there are a lot of things that matter besides production though like geography....

other wars going on...

unrest at home...

dpddouglass has a point there i think

but you cant forget about good old luck. in some ways that helped the english at the armada and in countless ways history never recorded i'm sure

and fulhamish they lost at thermopylae lol. just because they kicked ass as they got beat doesnt mean they didnt get beat.

Didn't the English ultimately lose the Twenty Years war? Or am I wrong about that? The Armada was but a small matter.

The defeat of Germany in the Second World War springs to mind. the overwhelming majority of Germany's forces were deployed against the Soviets, yet that is the theatre where they were decisively defeated. Once again the problems of long supply lines and the need to watch other fronts come to mind.

not true at all, in fact the war turned when the Soviet military machine was able to outproduce the Germans significantly

not to mention that U.S. industrial might was behind the Soviets as well

hey santa did u get my email

but to answer putins question, several imperial wars Vietnam, Russo-Afgan war, and I'm sure pre-modern wars (American Revolution anyone, although when factoring in the french this could be wrong). The Russo Japanese war has been mentioned, but you probably want to consider the majority of russias preperation was in the atlantic

Very much depends on what you consider as war. For instance, were the crusades against Hussites wars? Do peasant revolts or civil wars count? Do we disregard the amount of materiel each side had at the beginning of the conflict?

Nevertheless, I think that China or Khwarezmian Empire outproduced Mongols by much, as well as Sassanids and Byzantines outproduced Arabs.

ill check after i get the application im working on out

kk np was just curious

Afghanistan sez...

"LOL, FU, No Sir you no can haz our valleys" to basically anyone since Timur.

lol.

yeah terrain is a factor. but terrain really would just only be a factor in what dpddouglass was saying: it makes it harder for the better armed guy to get his guns there. basically.

but if all his production was already IN afghanistan, you can bet those dudes wouldnt stand a chance.

Namm is an example of one. As is Afghanistan (there is no way we will be the Taliban). As is the Mongol invasion of China, the Mongol invasion of Persia (can't remember the empires name, but the Mongols had 1/3 of the army size and won) and the Mongol invasion of Japan (largest navy ever build, and 90% of it was destroyed by a typhoon in open water)

"I would be inclined to guess the American Revolution on first examination, but I dunno to what extent foreign powers supporting the colonists produced war materials. Lemme try and find some data."
The French sent more supplies to rebels then England sent to the loyalists. So the AR is not an example

"My data only goes back to 1816, so I have no idea about Spanish Armada. You're probably right, though."
Link to your data?

Didn't the British beat the Afghans in the 1870s though?

Sorta. Kind of a Pyrrhic victory, but they were able to direct Afghanistan's foreign policy for a while afterward.

No, Putin, the Brits had some success, but got kicked out in the end.

I don't think Afghanistan's terrain helped them much, when you consider the Afghan Empire covered much of Iran, Tashkent & Samarkand, present day Pakistan and India and now they only have really a rump Afghanistan.

As i said
"My data only goes back to 1816, so I have no idea about Spanish Armada. You're probably right, though."
Link to your data?

http://www.correlatesofwar.org/COW2%20Data/Capabilities/nmc3-02.htm

"and fulhamish they lost at thermopylae lol. just because they kicked ass as they got beat doesnt mean they didnt get beat."

True, Thucydides. But the Greeks did actually win the war in the end.

Any colonial loss in Africa during the 19th century. First Italo-Ethiopian War, First Boer War, etc.

"First Italo-Ethiopian War, First Boer War"
The Boer War was won by England, sure they had many upsetting battles, but they still won in the end. Ethiopia was colonized by Italy in the late 19th century so once again lost...

You're wrong on both counts. Like, completely wrong.

i dont think you can or should extend this to mongol invasion of china or any medieval conflicts, the term production presupposes industrial and nationally directed or subsidized production, not feudal self arming.I would think the invention of gunpowder would be the starting point

*widespread use of gunpowder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_Wars
British victory...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Italian_Colonial_Empire.png
Lime Green (Eithopia and Libya)=Colonies Italy possessed in 1914. They would have had to have beaten Ethiopia in order to colonize it...

You can't be that stupid. Look at the FIRST Boer War and FIRST Italo-Ethiopian War article.

Guys, the Boers WON the first Boer War. They lost the Second Boer War. They then won the peace, but that is another story. Anyway, I hold up the First Boer War as another example of the failure of long supply lines against the determined resistance of the locals. To a large extent, ditto the Second Boer War, where the Brits had many times the forces of the Boers in the field, but could only overcome them by means of a protracted scorched earth policy and by placing non-combatants into "concentration camps" (BTW that is a term created by the English, not the Nazis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment)