Were the V-weapons a bad idea?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Were the V-weapons a bad idea?

#1

Post by ljadw » 17 Sep 2013, 22:42

[Split from "Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?"]
LWD wrote:
ljadw wrote:
steverodgers801 wrote:But you are not counting for the fact that Germany had added Czechoslovakia for 1939 production and then Poland and western Europe for 1940 and then the Soviets lost a good percentage of their production in the invasion. The Soviets clearly made better use of their resources then the Germans. There were too many cooks for Germany and no one person to organize it as there was in the Soviet Union. Add in to this the Soviets made a few basic models and didn't change things all the time as the Germans did.
There is no proof that the SU made better use of its resources then the Germans . There were as much cooks in the SU as in Germany .
I don't seem to recall reading about the Soviets devoting a whole lot of effort to the equivalant of the V 1, or the V 2, or the Maus. Nor were the Soviets wasting huge amounts of resources killing off some of their more productive people because they were part of the wrong "race". The Soviets also seemed to have had (at least IMO but I'm not an expert) a more realistic idea of where they were headed and what they needed to do to get there and tailored their efforts based on that. Of course I could be wrong in this and would certainly like to see more info either way.
That there was no Soviet V1,etc,does not mean that the V 1 production was wrong .The Germans produced the V 1/2,because they were thinking they need them,the Soviets did not need the V 1/V 2. On the other side,the Soviets had no long range bombers,which could be considered as a mistake .

The amounts the Germans used for the extermination of the German Jews,were meaningless compared to the total war expenditures,and,the German Jews who were murdered were not more productive than the average non jewish Germans .

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#2

Post by stg 44 » 18 Sep 2013, 00:02

ljadw wrote:On the other side,the Soviets had no long range bombers,which could be considered as a mistake .
Unlike the Germans who built over 1,200 He 177s that were not really even combat operational. There is also the V 3 cannons to consider, same with the FLAK towers, Atlantic Wall, and reinforced submarine pens.


User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#3

Post by LWD » 18 Sep 2013, 14:39

ljadw wrote: ... That there was no Soviet V1,etc,does not mean that the V 1 production was wrong .The Germans produced the V 1/2,because they were thinking they need them,the Soviets did not need the V 1/V 2.
The V 1 & V 2 weren't mistakes because the Soviets didn't build them they were mistakes because they simply weren't militarily effective and the data to support that was available pretty early on. Hitler liked the idea of them but that hardly makes them the a wise decision.
On the other side,the Soviets had no long range bombers,which could be considered as a mistake .
Not really. Long range bombers are only effective if you have enough of them and enough escorts to protect them. Besides if Stalin really thought they were worth the trouble and resources (air crew, maintenance, and logistics) he could have gotten them from the US. I consider this a rather wise decision on his part.
The amounts the Germans used for the extermination of the German Jews,were meaningless compared to the total war expenditures,and,the German Jews who were murdered were not more productive than the average non jewish Germans .
I would certainly have to see data to support those contentions before I believed them. On the other hand Iwasn't talking about all German Jews vs the average non Jewish German. There were a fair number of Jews involved in technical trades, indeed I think I've read that they were a critical component of the munitions industry in and around Berlin. Dislocating them and removing them from the parts of the industry they were familiar with certainly didn't help. Alianating them even if they were assigned back to industrial occupations that fit their skills was still counter productive. Also consider that while early in the war it may not have been to critical but late in the war transportation assets were saturated even if the amount used was fairly small it represented assets which were needed elsewhere.
ljadw wrote: ... The whole Soviet war economy in 1941,from production of weapons to production of food and the evacuation of industries to the east,was not planned,but improvised .
I'm not sure that's completely accurate. Indeed I have read that they were already moving some industries east of the Urals prior to the German attack. If that's the case some of the moves may well have been as planned and others may have been conducted by modifications of existing plans. Even the ones that weren't planned could use the existing plans as a template.
About the LWF divisions,
who were a failure: I still have to see the proofs that the reserve army was capable to train this additional manpower .
I have read that prior to the war Hitler had asked the Heer to build up more divisions. The generals told him that they could train the bulk of the soldiers but didn't have the time or resources to train the NCO's and junior officers needed. By 1942 they would have had a fairly large number of experianced soldiers that could be promoted into these positons. There would be limits as to how fast and how many they could train but certainly they could have trained up additional divisions and used additional troops to keep existing ones up to strength.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#4

Post by ljadw » 18 Sep 2013, 19:28

stg 44 wrote:
ljadw wrote:On the other side,the Soviets had no long range bombers,which could be considered as a mistake .
Unlike the Germans who built over 1,200 He177s that were not really even combat operational. There is also the V3 cannons to consider, same with the FLAK towers, Atlantic Wall, and reinforced submarine pens.

The V 3 cannon : there was also the HARP project

The FLAK Towers : I do not see why there were a mistake


Atlantic Wall,Stalin Line, British Defenses in the summer of 1940,Maginot Line : all reasonable things,unless you are saying that there was no need for coastal defenses in Normandy in 1944,etc.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#5

Post by ljadw » 18 Sep 2013, 19:37

LWD wrote:
ljadw wrote: ... That there was no Soviet V1,etc,does not mean that the V 1 production was wrong .The Germans produced the V 1/2,because they were thinking they need them,the Soviets did not need the V 1/V 2.
The V 1 & V 2 weren't mistakes because the Soviets didn't build them they were mistakes because they simply weren't militarily effective and the data to support that was available pretty early on.
[quot

That they were not military effective (which is questionable) is irrelevant : as such,they were not mistakes . They were the results of Hitler's offensive strategy in the air war: He choosed retaliory attacks as answer on the allied air attacks on Germany :there was only one available weapon to strike back : the V weapon. The LW was no more able to attack the British cities with any chance of success.

In the autumn of 1944,Antwerp (NOT London) was the number one target of the V 1/2,without these weapons,it was not possible to attack Antwerp .

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#6

Post by LWD » 18 Sep 2013, 20:08

ljadw wrote: That they were not military effective (which is questionable) is irrelevant : as such,they were not mistakes .
It's hardly questionable, the V 2 is of course the more extreme case. When the weapon costs far more than the damage it is likely to do it's a mistake, if more effective weapons are available for the resources it's a mistake. I believe both were true for the V 1 and V 2.
They were the results of Hitler's offensive strategy in the air war: He choosed retaliory attacks as answer on the allied air attacks on Germany :there was only one available weapon to strike back : the V weapon. The LW was no more able to attack the British cities with any chance of success.
That doesn't mean that they still weren't mistakes. Indeed at that point in the war even trying to attack London was a mistake. That it was Hitler's "strategy" hardly means it wasn't a mistake.
In the autumn of 1944,Antwerp (NOT London) was the number one target of the V 1/2,without these weapons,it was not possible to attack Antwerp .
That's irrelevant as well as incorrect.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#7

Post by ljadw » 18 Sep 2013, 22:15

No: it is irrelevant (at this stage of the war) what was the cost of a weapon,if the cost was bigger than the damage it could do .

No : it is irrelevant if more effective weapons would be available for the same resources: the question is : what was the German goal,and,what were the more effective weapons to reach that goal .

The goal was to make the port of Antwerp unusable for the Allies,and,the only weapon that was available were the V weapons : bombers could not do it .

It is also very questionable if the strategy was wrong,unless there was an alternative which could have better results .And,there was none .

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#8

Post by LWD » 19 Sep 2013, 15:00

ljadw wrote:No: it is irrelevant (at this stage of the war) what was the cost of a weapon,if the cost was bigger than the damage it could do .
If you are talking cost in coinage perhpas. However it was very close to a zero sum game for Germany. Allocating resouces in one place meant they weren't available in another. There were much more effective areas for Germany to put those resources.
[qutote]No : it is irrelevant if more effective weapons would be available for the same resources: the question is : what was the German goal,and,what were the more effective weapons to reach that goal .[/quote]
How far down do you brake it? If their utlimate goal was to win the war there were better places for them to put the resources. If you look at the goal as simply to deliver explosives to England then perhaps but I would argue that that goal is a mistake in and of itself.
The goal was to make the port of Antwerp unusable for the Allies,and,the only weapon that was available were the V weapons : bombers could not do it .
Niether could the V weapons and arguably bombers could have done a better job. In any case attacking Antwerp was hardly the goal of the V weapons when they were designed or even when they were first put into service.
It is also very questionable if the strategy was wrong,unless there was an alternative which could have better results .And,there was none .
Abusrd, of course there were. For instance the resources put into the V weapons would have been much more productivly applied to say AA weapons.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#9

Post by ljadw » 19 Sep 2013, 19:31

In the desperate situation of Germany,spending money on defensive AA weapons was a non sequitur :military and political reasons demanded attacks on British cities (the British attacks on German cities were also,partially,caused by the demand for revenge).

The V1 :
a) Costprice :5000 RM(which was meaningless)
b) In august 1944,the US also were building its own V1: the JB-2
)Efficiency of the V1:the rate of casualties/tons boms was the same for the V1 and the classic bomber :1.6

Blitz :61149 tons of boms and 92566 casualties
V1: 14600 tons of boms and 22.892 casualties


V2:3172 were fired ;costprice : 100000 RM

Belgium :1664 (1610 on Antwerp)

UK :1402 (1358 on London)

France :76

Netherlands :19

Germany :11 (Remagen)

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#10

Post by LWD » 19 Sep 2013, 21:15

ljadw wrote:In the desperate situation of Germany,spending money on defensive AA weapons was a non sequitur :military and political reasons demanded attacks on British cities (the British attacks on German cities were also,partially,caused by the demand for revenge).
Speculation and opinion unsupported by fact or logic.
The V1 :
a) Costprice :5000 RM(which was meaningless)
b) In august 1944,the US also were building its own V1: the JB-2
)Efficiency of the V1:the rate of casualties/tons boms was the same for the V1 and the classic bomber :1.6

Blitz :61149 tons of boms and 92566 casualties
V1: 14600 tons of boms and 22.892 casualties
Hardly the most useful MOE though is it.
V2:3172 were fired ;costprice : 100000 RM

Belgium :1664 (1610 on Antwerp)

UK :1402 (1358 on London)

France :76

Netherlands :19

Germany :11 (Remagen)
And they caused what was it about 12 casulties per V-2.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#11

Post by ljadw » 19 Sep 2013, 21:47

Speculation and opinion unsupported by fact/logic

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#12

Post by LWD » 19 Sep 2013, 22:41

ljadw wrote:Speculation and opinion unsupported by fact/logic
I take it you were agreeing that that fits your last post.
In the off chance you were talking about mine you are clearly wrong.
My first point was a statement of fact.
My second can be consdered the same. If you want a bit more detail why would a simple casualty count that doesn't consider whether the casualties were military or civilian or even childred be a good MOE for a military weapon?
As for the V2's, from memory the casualties per V2 were in the neighbor hood of 12 perhaps as high as 15. Looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket
V-2's averaged about 3 and possibly fewer fatalities among Germany's opponents and that includes both civilians and military. They did cause another 4 or so fatalities among the workers building them.
If we look at just the London attacks they caused ~2.03 fatalities per missile and another 4.8 casualties so less than 7 casualties per rocket. Antwerp was even lower at ~1.08 casualties per rocket and that's with a single outlier that got about 1/3 of the kills.

Looks like I may have overestimated their effectiveness.

We are however wandering off topic. Perhaps because we have defintively answered the question asked. I.e the answer is no.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#13

Post by ljadw » 20 Sep 2013, 19:00

LWD wrote:
ljadw wrote:Speculation and opinion unsupported by fact/logic
I take it you were agreeing that that fits your last post.
In the off chance you were talking about mine you are clearly wrong.
My first point was a statement of fact.
My second can be consdered the same. If you want a bit more detail why would a simple casualty count that doesn't consider whether the casualties were military or civilian or even childred be a good MOE for a military weapon?
As for the V2's, from memory the casualties per V2 were in the neighbor hood of 12 perhaps as high as 15. Looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket
V-2's averaged about 3 and possibly fewer fatalities among Germany's opponents and that includes both civilians and military. They did cause another 4 or so fatalities among the workers building them.
If we look at just the London attacks they caused ~2.03 fatalities per missile and another 4.8 casualties so less than 7 casualties per rocket. Antwerp was even lower at ~1.08 casualties per rocket and that's with a single outlier that got about 1/3 of the kills.

Looks like I may have overestimated their effectiveness.



We are however wandering off topic. Perhaps because we have defintively answered the question asked. I.e the answer is no.

No : the mission of the Vweapons was to kill enemies and create damage;afaics,that was what they were doing. Afaics,there was nothing that could replace in june 1944 the V weapons and do the same but cheaper /and /or /more efficiently ..

How many casualties was creating the PzIV(costprice : 115.962 RM) ,the Panther( costprice 117000 RM),the Tiger I (299800 RM) ?

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#14

Post by LWD » 20 Sep 2013, 19:07

ljadw wrote: ... No : the mission of the Vweapons was to kill enemies and create damage;
You are wrong for exactly the reason you state. Weapons are suppose to help one win a war. They do so by causing militarily significant damage the V-2 hardly did so and the V--1 arguably was marginal at that task.
afaics,that was what they were doing.
Useless pinpricks for the most part. Killing random civilians and or damaging a few homes had little miliitary impact and may have made the British even more resolute.
Afaics,there was nothing that could replace in june 1944 the V weapons and do the same but cheaper /and /or /more efficiently ..
How about the jet bombers? They were certainly more accurate. I suspect the same can be said for other military airacraft all be it at greater risk to the planes and pilots.
How many casualties was creating the PzIV(costprice : 115.962 RM) ,the Panther( costprice 117000 RM),the Tiger I (299800 RM) ?
I don't know but I suspect fatalities were rare and serious injuries at the very least uncommon. But you should be able to find the numbers as easy as I can.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

#15

Post by ljadw » 20 Sep 2013, 23:23

LWD wrote:
ljadw wrote: ... No : the mission of the Vweapons was to kill enemies and create damage;
You are wrong for exactly the reason you state. Weapons are suppose to help one win a war. They do so by causing militarily significant damage the V-2 hardly did so and the V--1 arguably was marginal at that task.
afaics,that was what they were doing.
Useless pinpricks for the most part. Killing random civilians and or damaging a few homes had little miliitary impact and may have made the British even more resolute.
Afaics,there was nothing that could replace in june 1944 the V weapons and do the same but cheaper /and /or /more efficiently ..
How about the jet bombers? They were certainly more accurate. I suspect the same can be said for other military airacraft all be it at greater risk to the planes and pilots.
How many casualties was creating the PzIV(costprice : 115.962 RM) ,the Panther( costprice 117000 RM),the Tiger I (299800 RM) ?
I don't know but I suspect fatalities were rare and serious injuries at the very least uncommon. But you should be able to find the numbers as easy as I can.

If the jet bombers were cheaper,could do more damage, and were AVAILABLE,the Germans would have used them .

The conclusion is that they were not available,which makes the question if they were cheaper and could do more damage,irrelevant

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”