You may have focused too much on the humor, sarcasm, and cynicism in my post. I actually told you why Jentz is correct while Mr. G remains clueless about the cause and effect nature of the world. He apparently believes more tanks get built when a functionary in some office makes a directive and writes a check. Unfortunately, the real world is very different. Tanks are built in factories, which are supplied with components built in many other sub-factories, all of which move about on transportation networks. Increasing tank output required increasing the number and size of those factories, which required additional raw materials and labor to manufacture and move them.Stiltzkin wrote:I certainly like humor, sarcasm and cynical comments but I am just saying that this does not match Guaporenses percentage of allocation theory... (not to mention that any occupant would loot and salvage everything possible, that is nothing extraordinary as the Soviets usually dismantled whole factories)
This, for example, is the reality of the "savings" generated by building the StuG (from my posts at TankNet and WW2f).
The original manufacturers and plants allocated to building German tanks were Krupp-Gruson at Magdeburg, MAN Nurnberg, Miag Brunswick, Henschel Kassel, Daimler-Benz Berlin-Marienfelde, and Alkett Berlin-Borsigwalde. After the annexation of Czechoslovakia, Skoda and BMM were added.
Later, Henschel's plant was expanded, Nibelungenwerke was built, and VOMAG and MNH were added.
Most of the plants could be switched to other, larger vehicles for final assembly. Skoda and BMM could not, the manufacturing bays and entrances were simply too small and the craneways unable to support the additional weight without a considerable investment of time and money to expand - the decision was instead made to keep production of the Pz-38 (t) chassis as supporting vehicles. They eventually did try to use it for an "assault gun platform", the PzJg 38 (t), but in many ways that was a miserable failure that exceeded the capabilities of the chassis.
A similar problem occurred at Alkett. The original factory was big enough for Pz-III chassis production (and probably could have been used for Panzer-IV as well). However, it was selected to produce the StuG-III since it was already producing the Pz-III. The StuG III production then became important enough that Alkett expanded to component manufacture at a site at Tegel. Then, when the main assembly hall was bombed out they went to nearby Falkensee, which was an unused rail engine plant for final chassis assembly and opened a plant at Spandau for final assembly. That decision was based on minimal conversion costs and convenience, as well as the absolute necessity of maintaining the StuG production. The critical necessity of maintaining StuG production was also why some of the Pz-IV production at Krupp-Gruson was sidelined to the StuG-IV.
Meanwhile, Krupp-Gruson and Miag had moved from Panzer-III to Panzer-IV production, with VOMAG added, while Nibelungen was planned for Panzer-IV and VI production from its inception. MAN, MNH, and D-B went to the Panther production pool, which was a bit of a Johnny come lately. Those decisions were based upon the cost of converting/retooling and the realization that the changeover would result in a drastic reduction in tank production, which might have been temporary, but still catastrophic. Capital conversion costs plus loss of production was what kept the Panzer-IV producers from converting to Panther and it was decided Alkett continue StuG-III production for the same reasons.
Note that while factories were added, only Henschel saw any significant expansion, which may have been because it along with Nibelungenwerke was the only producer of the Tiger series.