German waste of resources??

[Marcelo Jenisch]

Many people say that the Germans should not have produced the Tiger and the Panther. I'm not so certain of this. By 1944-45, the Allies were deploying improvements of existent or new tanks that were superior to the Panzer IV. The T-34-85, the IS series, the M26 and the Centurion. Germany would not be only outproduced, but also outclassed. Those German tanks were excellent, after their technical problems were overcomed, they were very good machines. They were not a factor in Germany losing the war IMHO.

[ljadw]

OTOH, one can question the decision (pré Barbarossa) to build the Tiger:the Tiger would be produced after a victorious Barbarossa,which would result in the end of the war,thus,there would be no more big tank battles.

[Marcelo Jenisch]

The Tiger was to be an "iron fist" in the Panzer divisions, punching a hole in the enemy lines, for the medium tanks explore it (the Panthers). The Tiger was never meant to be produced in the same quantity as medium tank. Most people compare it's production numbers with the T-34, for example. There's no sense in that. The Soviets BTW, also deployed a heavy tank during the war, but to destroy enemy defensive positions. That was the IS. Actually, the IS was developed from the concept of the KV tank, in service since 1939. Heavy tanks were present or their production was considerated by all the major powers of the time.

[nebelwerferXXX]

During NS Regime, Germany built 2 Battleships, 3 Battle cruisers and 5 Heavy cruisers...an amount of 227,232 tons of vital steel and other raw materials. IMHO Germany´s main war effort was on land by far, because as Hitler said in Mein Kampf they needed Lebensraum...and it was in the East. An U-boat weight was already 1,600 tons, a Pzkpfw IV 25 tons and a Pzkpfw Panther 44.8 tons. It means 140 U-boats (if are really urged to improve Kriegsmarine power), or better...9,000 Pzkpfw IV (in 1941) or 5,072 Panthers (in 1943) could have been used in Barbarossa and Africa, not to mention the +12,000 men from those ships crews ! Just imagine the impact of such numbers in the course of the war ! Opinions ?

In short:
The 2 battleships, 3 battle cruisers and 5 heavy cruisers (227,232 tons and 12,000 men) = 140 U-boats (224,000 tons) OR 9,000 Panzer IV tanks (225,000 tons) OR 5,072 Panther tanks (227,225.6 tons). In my opinion, the ships were a waste of resources because they did not contribute much in Hitler's war effort in Barbarossa and Africa...5,072 Panthers tanks if used in the great Kursk offensive might have destroyed the 1,337,000-man Soviet military in 1943.

[Kingfish]

Instead of building 5,000 Panthers wouldn't it be better to build one ginormous tank the size of Schleswig-Holstein with 50 turrets sporting Schwerer Gustav-sized main guns and simply roll across Europe and Asia?

[Takao]

That's why these "resources" threads are so amusing, the jokes that come out of them.

In short:
The 2 battleships, 3 battle cruisers and 5 heavy cruisers (227,232 tons and 12,000 men) = 140 U-boats (224,000 tons) OR 9,000 Panzer IV tanks (225,000 tons) OR 5,072 Panther tanks (227,225.6 tons). In my opinion, the ships were a waste of resources because they did not contribute much in Hitler's war effort in Barbarossa and Africa...5,072 Panthers tanks if used in the great Kursk offensive might have destroyed the 1,337,000-man Soviet military in 1943.

Your comparing apples to oranges to strawberries to kiwi fruit.

In long:
The heavy armor used on the capital ships is not comparable to the armor used to construct U-boats or tanks and AFAIK the only tank the Germans considered mounting "heavy" guns on was the P-1000/P-1500 paper-design "Landkreuzer". I hope you not implying, by comparing capital ships-to-tanks than the Landkreuzer(since the P-1500 was the closest "tank" to a battleship) would have been a wiser investment.

As for the men, you have apparently not thought this through. With the naval manpower available, you could man more U-boats. However, for your tank comparison, you are going to come up quite short; 12,000 men is enough to man only 2,400 tanks. So, you will only be able to crew 27% of your Panzer IVs or roughly 50% of your Panthers. With half to three-quarters of your "new" tanks UNMANNED, I don't see them as posing much of a threat to anyone.

Since your 5,000-9,000 new tanks don't run on bunker oil, where do you plan to get the gasoline/petrol from?

Wait...the ships did not contribute much to North Africa??? Are you serious??? Refresh my memory, the first time any of the King George V class battleships entered the Med was in...what, November, 1942. How many of the British battleships were idly swinging at anchor in Great Britain or escorting convoys during 1939-42 waiting for the German fleet to make an appearance. With no threat from Germany, Britain is free to send her major warships anywhere she wants, like, oh say, the Med. Just because the major German surface units never entered the Med does not mean that they did not have an effect on how that campaign was fought.

[ljadw]

During NS Regime, Germany built 2 Battleships, 3 Battle cruisers and 5 Heavy cruisers...an amount of 227,232 tons of vital steel and other raw materials. IMHO Germany´s main war effort was on land by far, because as Hitler said in Mein Kampf they needed Lebensraum...and it was in the East. An U-boat weight was already 1,600 tons, a Pzkpfw IV 25 tons and a Pzkpfw Panther 44.8 tons. It means 140 U-boats (if are really urged to improve Kriegsmarine power), or better...9,000 Pzkpfw IV (in 1941) or 5,072 Panthers (in 1943) could have been used in Barbarossa and Africa, not to mention the +12,000 men from those ships crews ! Just imagine the impact of such numbers in the course of the war ! Opinions ?

In short:
The 2 battleships, 3 battle cruisers and 5 heavy cruisers (227,232 tons and 12,000 men) = 140 U-boats (224,000 tons) OR 9,000 Panzer IV tanks (225,000 tons) OR 5,072 Panther tanks (227,225.6 tons). In my opinion, the ships were a waste of resources because they did not contribute much in Hitler's war effort in Barbarossa and Africa...5,072 Panthers tanks if used in the great Kursk offensive might have destroyed the 1,337,000-man Soviet military in 1943.

That's short-sighted:less battle-ships does not mean more U Boats,or more Panthers.Voss(which was making U Boats) would not recognize the front from the rear of a Panther.And,5.072 more Panthers as such means nothing,unless you would have and the crew,the fuel,artillery and infantry needed for these tanks .

[phylo_roadking]

...remebering that through the war OTL they were combing out the crews of surface vessels to find uboat crews!

[amcl]

...remebering that through the war OTL they were combing out the crews of surface vessels to find uboat crews!

Right, a not-so-trivial detail that one.

Props to David Waller for mentioning http://www.uboatarchive.net on the thread about Electroboats. That's a site I'd never come across before. The interrogation reports of U-boat personnel, even in 1941, make unhappy reading for anyone who supposes that the German Navy could have crewed substantially more submarines with ease. True, they probably need to be taken with salt - PoWs aren't being seen at their best and the report-writers come across as arrogant and smug - but even allowing for that it's scary stuff. The woes of U-570, the future HMS Graph, would be funny if it wasn't a matter of life and death.

One point that struck me was the prevalence of ex-fliers among the officers. I'm curious as to whether that perception is the result of my surprise at seeing any ex-naval air arm or ex-LW officers mentioned or whether such transfers were in fact common. Something for a very dull day perhaps.

[nebelwerferXXX]

Since your 5,000 Panther & 9,000 Panzer IV tanks do not run on bunker oil, where do you plan to get the gasoline/petrol from ?

From the Ruhr ?

[Kingfish]

Since your 5,000 Panther & 9,000 Panzer IV tanks do not run on bunker oil, where do you plan to get the gasoline/petrol from ?

From the Ruhr ?

Unfortunately...no.

[BDV]

But as the British blockade of mainland Europe was at no point under any serious threat, and the UBoot blockade of Britain was an abysmal failure, the Kriegsmarine failed miserably in its two strategic missions: defend Germany's sea lanes, and obstruct Britain's.

That, for the first half of the war, the Kriegsmarine influenced/obstructed Royal Navy's tactical deployment is a risible return on the heavy investment of resources and political capital. And, to be fair, a testament to RN's men & manowars and to Admiralty's strategic acumen.


P.S.
As to the proposition that the materials and labor that went into the building of Kriegsmarine could not have been used for other purposes - I find THAT risible.

[Takao]

But as the British blockade of mainland Europe was at no point under any serious threat, and the UBoot blockade of Britain was an abysmal failure, the Kriegsmarine failed miserably in its two strategic missions: defend Germany's sea lanes, and obstruct Britain's.

Those were the Kriegsmarine's two strategic missions? Even though it had too few vessels to accomplish either one strategic missions alone, let alone do both at the same time.

Hitler started his war before the Kriegsmarine was in, any way, shape, or form, prepared for a "world" war. At best, the only "strategic" mission the kriegsmarine was capable of was coastal defense.

That, for the first half of the war, the Kriegsmarine influenced/obstructed Royal Navy's tactical deployment is a risible return on the heavy investment of resources and political capital. And, to be fair, a testament to RN's men & manowars and to Admiralty's strategic acumen.

Laughable...Really...It took the British, what, almost 3 YEARS to conduct their first successful, large scale amphibious operation(Operation Ironclad in July, '42). Now, what if the British had been able to focus their overwhelming naval supremacy somewhat earlier in the war, instead of being forced to dilute their naval forces to cover the many British vulnerable sea areas.

Without a credible naval threat from the German Kriegsmarine, the British, very likely could focus their vast naval effort much earlier in the war.

P.S.
As to the proposition that the materials and labor that went into the building of Kriegsmarine could not have been used for other purposes - I find THAT risible.

I don't think anyone is saying the the resources dedicated to producing the small Kriegsmarine fleet could not have been used for other purposes. The conflict arises as to how effective those "other" purposes are.

You can produce many more tanks - except that there will be no one to man most of them, there will be no gasoline/petrol to run most of them, there is no logistical support for ANY of them.

Much the same can be said for aircraft - with the caveat that battleship armor does not equate to massive quantities of aluminum.

Even if Germany had not built any of the warships under discussion, and , instead, pursued some other course of production, she is still "attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis." aka screwed.

[LWD]

If Hitler hadn't ended up in a war with Britain (or the US) however the KM would have been adequate (vs say France) or overkill (vs the USSR). So was the problem with building the KM or ignoring the Franco British position with respect to Poland?

[Takao]

Hard to say, but probably both, building the Kriegsmarine and ignoring/mis-reading the Franco-British position regarding Poland.

As is often discussed here regarding the mythic German "Z-Plan", could Germany have completed that without bankrupting it's economy, and then provide it with a reasonable supply of fuel...