Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
rays
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 14:10
Location: Canada

Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#1

Post by rays » 09 Feb 2016, 05:51

Hello,

When Germany invaded Russia in 1941, they were accompanied by Romanians, Hungarians, Finish, and Italian soldiers all armed and organized in accordance with National standards. These countries provided over 800,000 troops in the 1941, contributing 20% of the invasion force. Yet, despite contributing a sizable contribution, these allies were often marginalized in German accounts of World War 2. With German accounts stating that ehy would flee before the opposition.

What is often left unsaid is how these allies, and their soldiers fought with often significantly inferior equipment. From the accounts I have read (Three Kings, Third Axis Fourth Ally, Death on the Don, etc) the Germans did not provide modern weapons, nor were they willing to provide their allies with the opportunity or designs to build modern compatible equipment based upon German designs. I don't believe that this is due to lack of funds as Romanian had significant wealth as an oil exporting nation, so was this a standing German strategy? If so why?

Thanks,

Ray

User avatar
pintere
Financial supporter
Posts: 459
Joined: 03 Jan 2015, 23:04
Location: Moose Jaw

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#2

Post by pintere » 09 Feb 2016, 15:53

In lots of cases (especially tanks and aircraft) there simply wasn't enough to go around for the German army, let alone those of their allies. But you do raise a valid point, I also think they could've done more to better prepare their allied formations for battle.


steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#3

Post by steverodgers801 » 09 Feb 2016, 21:34

When the Germans invaded they were just starting to increase their production, but as mentioned they still had their own shortages. Due to losses in the western campaigns the Germans actually had fewer planes then at the start. The shortages for Germany were so great that they started Barbarossa with PZ 1, 2 and Czech t series tanks, the 1 and 2s were at best equal to the Romanian and Hungarian tanks. It wasn't just equipment, it was also leadership and training.

User avatar
Ifor
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 03 Nov 2013, 01:10

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#4

Post by Ifor » 10 Feb 2016, 10:19

I'm sure I recently read(might have been on here) that the they refused to allow the. Italians to license build the Pz 3. I've read about the refusal to allow license builds, was this due to selfish political views, or were there justifiable reasons?

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#5

Post by Knouterer » 10 Feb 2016, 11:58

According to Spielberger, Beute-Kraftfahrzeuge und -Panzer der deutschen Wehrmacht, p. 298, in January 1943 the OKH (Chef der Heeresrüstung) announced that Hitler had directed that the Italians (Fiat-Ansaldo) would be allowed to produce the Panther tank under licence, without paying any rights. Because of the events of 1943, production never started.
Like the Romanians, the Italians received a few dozen captured French tanks from the Germans in 1941.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#6

Post by steverodgers801 » 11 Feb 2016, 03:01

permission and ability are two different things

rays
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 14:10
Location: Canada

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#7

Post by rays » 11 Feb 2016, 04:21

Hi Steverodgers,

I read the same thing from both the Hungarian and Romanian perspectives where they were seeking licence to build Pz IV tanks from 1942 on wards but experienced difficulties in receiving permission from the Germans. It is quite clear that these countries, including Italy had the ability to produce tanks, and anti-tank weapons but did not have the technical designs. If Germany wanted to have strong allies (which in itself is an interesting question), they should have encouraged the production of military goods, and organization of forces in other countries.

I can only compare these actions to those of both the Commonwealth and the US. In the case of the United States, they had the ability and made the effort to arm their allies with weapons. In particular I am thinking of the Brazilian Expeditionary Force as an example of the US arming allies. The CW may be a more economically similar comparison. Not only did the CW licence Canada and Australia to produce weapons, they actively encouraged it as a means of increasing production and spreading industry.

The Germans clearly were deficient in their economic planning and consideration during world war 2, especially within an allied context.

User avatar
pintere
Financial supporter
Posts: 459
Joined: 03 Jan 2015, 23:04
Location: Moose Jaw

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#8

Post by pintere » 11 Feb 2016, 14:43

rays wrote:Hi Steverodgers,

I read the same thing from both the Hungarian and Romanian perspectives where they were seeking licence to build Pz IV tanks from 1942 on wards but experienced difficulties in receiving permission from the Germans. It is quite clear that these countries, including Italy had the ability to produce tanks, and anti-tank weapons but did not have the technical designs. If Germany wanted to have strong allies (which in itself is an interesting question), they should have encouraged the production of military goods, and organization of forces in other countries.

I can only compare these actions to those of both the Commonwealth and the US. In the case of the United States, they had the ability and made the effort to arm their allies with weapons. In particular I am thinking of the Brazilian Expeditionary Force as an example of the US arming allies. The CW may be a more economically similar comparison. Not only did the CW licence Canada and Australia to produce weapons, they actively encouraged it as a means of increasing production and spreading industry.

The Germans clearly were deficient in their economic planning and consideration during world war 2, especially within an allied context.
While this is definitely interesting, I find it difficult to believe that Germany's allies had the kind of industrial base to produce something like a Pz IV tank. You say it's quite clear they could've. Could you go into a bit more detail?

Michate
Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 02 Feb 2004, 11:50
Location: Germany

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#9

Post by Michate » 11 Feb 2016, 18:21

I read the same thing from both the Hungarian and Romanian perspectives where they were seeking licence to build Pz IV tanks from 1942 on wards but experienced difficulties in receiving permission from the Germans. It is quite clear that these countries, including Italy had the ability to produce tanks, and anti-tank weapons but did not have the technical designs. If Germany wanted to have strong allies (which in itself is an interesting question), they should have encouraged the production of military goods, and organization of forces in other countries.
One reason may have been the suspicion (not unfounded) that both Hungary and Romania tried to hold back their best units at home in order to be prepared to start military operations against each other.

There may also have been time constraints at work: In 1941, the Germans expected to quickly defeat the Soviet Union, and most allies were expected to play only a minor, and temporary role, which was expected to be over before any new equipment built under licence would reach the troops. The same reasoning may have been prvalent even in 1942.

Generally, it is not unusual for hegemonic powers to try to keep dependent allies, or vassals, from generating too much military power, and this includes the USA. When (Western) Germany tried to acquire atomic weapons in the late 1950s, on initiative of the then minister of defense F.-J. Strauß, the USA objected, although the technological capacity doubtlessly existed in Germany and the military defense, or deterrence, capacity of NATO would have been improved.

As to the delivery of equipment, IMO it was a perfectly rational policy, generally, to allocate scarce equipment to the troops that could, first, be reasonably expected to be most reliable (from the German viewpoint) and, second, assumed to be able to generate the most combat power out of it, and which, third, were consequentially also generally used for the most important operations; i.e. to German troops.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#10

Post by Sid Guttridge » 11 Feb 2016, 20:32

Getting permission to build German weaponry wasn't the main problem.

The problem was that it would often require new machine tools. These were in short supply in Axis Europe and Germany made a point of subordinating captured factories to her own industries.

Germany's industries were probably more efficient than those of any of her Allies, and could make more efficient use of the machine tools.

The allies would therefore have to adapt their local industries or capture their own machine tools. Only the northern Italians were highly industrialized enough to be able to produce some major German weaponry without bering supplied with German machine tools as well.

As far as I am aware, only the Romanians managed to put into production 120mm mortars using captured Soviet plant.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Ifor
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 03 Nov 2013, 01:10

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#11

Post by Ifor » 12 Feb 2016, 10:15

Sid,
Didn't the French and the Czechs have good industrial facilities? I'm aware the Czech factories produced a large amount of armour and the French had a large aircraft industry, but was it also perhaps a case of the Germans being inept in organising axis industry due to political infighting? Just posing the question.

Mikko H.
Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: 07 May 2003, 11:19
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#12

Post by Mikko H. » 12 Feb 2016, 16:37

As far as I am aware, only the Romanians managed to put into production 120mm mortars using captured Soviet plant.
Finns had produced a 120mm mortar design of their own since 1940.

See: http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/MORTARS6.htm (scroll down for "120 Krh/40")

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#13

Post by Sid Guttridge » 15 Feb 2016, 18:04

Hi Ifor,

All captured Czech and French military factories, and those of other over run nationalities, were placed under the control of German companies, which either continued production on site or sent their machine tools to Germany. Indeed, the Germans bought heavily into the military factories of their allies as well.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#14

Post by Sid Guttridge » 15 Feb 2016, 18:11

Hi Mikko H.,

It looks as though the Finnish 120mm mortar was put into production according to a pre-war plan.

It would be interesting to know who supplied the machine tools for the production - the future Allies or the future Axis?

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Ifor
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 03 Nov 2013, 01:10

Re: Arming Their Eastern Front Allies

#15

Post by Ifor » 15 Feb 2016, 21:10

Sid,
Appreciated
Ifor

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”