Panzers instead of U-boats

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
AriX
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 29 Jun 2015 08:07
Location: Ukraine

Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by AriX » 30 Jul 2018 19:50

Cud German industry increase production of tanks instead of submarines if the war on the West would end (doesent matter why)? Soviets managed to do so on "Krasnoe Sormovo" shipyard.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 8412
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 31 Jul 2018 10:00

The answer is : no .
There were only a few shipping companies who could build U Boats (Voss and Blohm was one of them ) and they could not build tanks .

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by gracie4241 » 03 Aug 2018 16:36

OF course the Germans could have produced MANY more tanks! The LABOR(ie workers), raw materials, and some machine tools could have been transferred to the tank manufacturing industry. One of the chronic complaints about production was not enough workers for extra shifts and/or raw material available. When Hitler wanted to bump up panzer production to 10,000 units/year in July 1940, the EXPRESS reason for deferral was that it would come at the expense of the U-Boat program. The USSBS estimated (on average depending on tank type) that 1 U-Boat cost was the equivalent to 20 tanks in terms of man hours, materials etc. Since the Germans actually finished a little less than 1200 U-boats, with another 300 or so under construction or destroyed by bombing. that translates to 30,000tanks!!!!!! Or equipment for 150 panzer divisions!!!! My lord. The impact of the west in terms of resource allocation was IMMENSE in WW2 and in my mind WAS THE SECOND FRONT in many repects.35,000 V1 and V2 rockets anyone?

AriX
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 29 Jun 2015 08:07
Location: Ukraine

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by AriX » 05 Aug 2018 10:48

"When Hitler wanted to bump up panzer production to 10,000 units/year in July 1940, the EXPRESS reason for deferral was that it would come at the expense of the U-Boat program."
And its in the year when U-boat production was on the level of 50 , comparing to 250 and more in the future.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 8412
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 05 Aug 2018 11:49

gracie4241 wrote:
03 Aug 2018 16:36
OF course the Germans could have produced MANY more tanks! The LABOR(ie workers), raw materials, and some machine tools could have been transferred to the tank manufacturing industry. One of the chronic complaints about production was not enough workers for extra shifts and/or raw material available. When Hitler wanted to bump up panzer production to 10,000 units/year in July 1940, the EXPRESS reason for deferral was that it would come at the expense of the U-Boat program. The USSBS estimated (on average depending on tank type) that 1 U-Boat cost was the equivalent to 20 tanks in terms of man hours, materials etc. Since the Germans actually finished a little less than 1200 U-boats, with another 300 or so under construction or destroyed by bombing. that translates to 30,000tanks!!!!!! Or equipment for 150 panzer divisions!!!! My lord. The impact of the west in terms of resource allocation was IMMENSE in WW2 and in my mind WAS THE SECOND FRONT in many repects.35,000 V1 and V2 rockets anyone?
NO : estimates of the USSBS are estimates by people ignorant of the German economy .
The firms and workers who built submarines could not build tanks, besides, the Germans needed not more tanks than they had in 1941 to win in the East .
The reason for the deferral of the tank production,was not that it would hurt the production of submarines, as more submarines would not help Germany : it took more than one year to build a submarine and to train its crew .
The increase of the number of PzD AND simultaneously the decrease of the number of army divisions by 20,was dictated by the conviction that very soon the war would be over .
The monthly tank production was in June 1940 some 150,to obtain with this number the total of 10000 tanks would demand 7 years !!

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by OpanaPointer » 05 Aug 2018 11:52

100,000 tanks, plus service battalions, fuel acquisition, refining, and delivery...

Nah. The reason most troops are infantry is because they're easier to support.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by gracie4241 » 09 Aug 2018 15:41

Have not the slightest idea of what you're talking about. The (post war) United States Strategic Bombing Survey EXPRESSLY used testimony from industrial leaders AND the ACTUAL economic and industrial records of German firms: I take it you had no idea what USSBS meant.It was ABUNDANTLY clear that labor(more workers on U Boats from 1940-43 than on Germany's TOTAL AFV program-these are records from Speer's ministry) and raw materials WERE EASILY transferrable. The tank factories did NOT operate on three shifts because they didn't have the workers and/or the raw materials(eg steel) HITLER DID drop his request for 10,000 units PER ANNUM because it would threaten the Uboat program. The WHOLE point was to bump up monthly production from 150/month to 850/month(10,000'yr). For some inexplicable reason you seem to feel that if the U-Boat program for example was de-prioritized it would have NO EFFECT on other armament programs. Get Tooze book "Wages of Destruction" and you'll see the wartime German economy constantly(probably a negative) shifted resources from say ammunition production to aircraft production as priorities shifted .IT is SELF- EVIDENTLY wrong to infer as you do that U-Boat construction could not be stopped or reduced in favor of tank production, or other programs as needed.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 8412
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 09 Aug 2018 16:05

gracie4241 wrote:
09 Aug 2018 15:41
Have not the slightest idea of what you're talking about. The (post war) United States Strategic Bombing Survey EXPRESSLY used testimony from industrial leaders AND the ACTUAL economic and industrial records of German firms: I take it you had no idea what USSBS meant.It was ABUNDANTLY clear that labor(more workers on U Boats from 1940-43 than on Germany's TOTAL AFV program-these are records from Speer's ministry) and raw materials WERE EASILY transferrable. The tank factories did NOT operate on three shifts because they didn't have the workers and/or the raw materials(eg steel) HITLER DID drop his request for 10,000 units PER ANNUM because it would threaten the Uboat program. The WHOLE point was to bump up monthly production from 150/month to 850/month(10,000'yr). For some inexplicable reason you seem to feel that if the U-Boat program for example was de-prioritized it would have NO EFFECT on other armament programs. Get Tooze book "Wages of Destruction" and you'll see the wartime German economy constantly(probably a negative) shifted resources from say ammunition production to aircraft production as priorities shifted .IT is SELF- EVIDENTLY wrong to infer as you do that U-Boat construction could not be stopped or reduced in favor of tank production, or other programs as needed.
Proof for your claim that Hitler dropped his request for 10000 units per annum because it would threaten the UBoat program ?
Proof for your claim that Hitler initially requested the production of 10000 tanks per year ?
Proof that 10000 tanks per year was possible when ordered by Hitler ?
Proof that 10000 tanks per year was needed ?
Proof that more tanks meant less UBoats ?
Self-evidently is not a proof .
About the USSB :they were a group of Americans arriving in Europe ,not hindered by any knowledge, and with as baggage the biased conviction that the outcome of the war proved that liberal capitalism was superior to all other economic systems;to prove this, they used the informations they received from the liar Speer .
Last edited by ljadw on 09 Aug 2018 16:46, edited 1 time in total.

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by gracie4241 » 09 Aug 2018 16:31

YIKES!! WOW, a nerve has been struck.I see from the last part of your reply that you are an unreconstructed communist russian fanboy troll. That's OK , because in a liberal capitalist society we have the freedom to express our views openly, as opposed to the Stalinist regime you appear to admire.Therefore its useless to argue facts with you.I'll just conclude(check your blood pressure) that it was VERY fortunate Russia had liberal capitalist nations on its side or Communism would have seen the ash heap of history a half century earlier

ljadw
Member
Posts: 8412
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 09 Aug 2018 16:45

The production of tanks and submarines was not related : the production of both increased during the war .
1940 :tanks :1888 /UB :50
1941 :tanks : 3623 /UB : 199
1942 : tanks : 5530 /UB : 238
1943 : tanks : 11601 /UB : 286
This proves that it was possible to increase the production of tanks and of UB;the reason was that the firms/workers who built tanks could not build UB, and that those who built UB could not build tanks .
I like to see the proof that ,if in 1942 only 3623 tanks were built,286 UB would be built and not 238 .

Boby
Member
Posts: 2374
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Boby » 11 Aug 2018 11:56

gracie4241 wrote:
09 Aug 2018 16:31
YIKES!! WOW, a nerve has been struck.I see from the last part of your reply that you are an unreconstructed communist russian fanboy troll. That's OK , because in a liberal capitalist society we have the freedom to express our views openly, as opposed to the Stalinist regime you appear to admire.Therefore its useless to argue facts with you.I'll just conclude(check your blood pressure) that it was VERY fortunate Russia had liberal capitalist nations on its side or Communism would have seen the ash heap of history a half century earlier
Why, instead of all this useless post, start you to post some hard data on KM/Panzer industry, raw material and manpower situation in 1940?

It would be more useful.

Return to “Economy”