Failures in the Nazi economy..

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
Damper
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 13:18

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by Damper » 26 Dec 2009 23:39

My understanding of the Black Prince was that it was simply another attempt to fit the 17 pounder onto an existing tank chassis... not so much an attempt to develop a heavy tank.

Likewise the Tortise... was that really an attempt to develop a heavy tank? I don't think the British saw any requirement for the 32 pounder (Incidently I never called it a 25 pounder) there were sound design reasons why the 3.7 inch anti aircraft gun was rarely used for anti tank warfare... namely the recoil system... I think they quickly realised that the 32 pounder was an evolutionary dead end... where as the 17 pounder would evolve into the 20 pounder and later the 105mm.

The tortise's intended purpose was to attack fortifications... a job which could be done just as well with existing engineer vehicles..

As for my original post I've read the other threads covering the NAZI economy and I regret I did not do so before starting this thread.. If I had I would have tried and narrow it down to the refusal of German engineers to design Kit appropriate to their limited circumstances.

I still look at the Tiger and ask myself what were they thinking... they couldn't produce enough of them, maintain the build quality or even fuel them.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by phylo_roadking » 27 Dec 2009 01:52

Likewise the Tortise... was that really an attempt to develop a heavy tank?


Perceptions of it have changed; nowadays it's viewed as an anti-fortification assault tank....but I use a "period" (very early 1950's) guide by B.T. White for a lot of details, as I find (due to the confusion surrounding SO much of the British tank design history) that it's best to get a perception as close to events as possible...and at that point, only a few years after it was terminated after testing, it was definitely neing viewed as an "Infantry" tank, in that design stream.

After all - it COULD be argued that given how early in the 1930's the Siegfried Line appeared - a necessity for SOME sort of an anti-Siegfried Line tank was "obvious" once the prospect of European conflict hoved into view...but was firmly at the back of people's minds until around 1941-42 the prospects for SLEDGEHAMMER and an early invasion of the Continent appeared! 8O

The tortise's intended purpose was to attack fortifications... a job which could be done just as well with existing engineer vehicles..


Not quite the same thing; while the Centaur WAS in development at the same time...based on the Cavalier/Cromwell chassis it was expected to accompany Cromwell-equiped units in the same way as normal CS smoke-throwing tanks :wink: whereas the Tortoise was going to be much more of a special-use "point application" assault tank. It's entirely conicidental to the Tortoise design process that in the end THAT was how the Centaur was used! :lol:

Meanwhile, as specialised assault vehicles, work on the Funnies began after the Tortoise project began...AND they were broadly expected to be expended ON D-Day :wink: So simply wouldn't be around for the Siegfried Line...

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by Guaporense » 28 Dec 2009 22:11

Damper wrote:I've read that particularly with the Tiger II, that the quality of the armour could at times be extremely poor, so that rounds that were deflected would often cause cracking.


That`s because of loss of raw material sources for making decent armor plates by late 1944. That was not a fault in design.

Also that as with the Panther the final drive as well as other parts with high stresses place on them, needed constant replacing. Also there was just the genuine poor reliabilty of both the Tiger I and II engine failure, due to poor quality engine parts espeically gaskets.


Problems related to the state of Germany in 1944.

I know it was an engineering marvel, but really they didn't have the resources to manufacture them in the numbers or to the standard required, likewise with the Panther.


1- Lack of resources? Well, you should use your resources the best way. You can use the resources to make thousands of crappy tanks, like the sherman, or to make good tanks in smaller quantity.

I think that considering the favorable ratios of kills for the tigers and panthers fully justify their production and cost.

2- Well, they produced 8,000 of these tanks. And they planned to produce 600 panthers per month and about 150 tigers. Hardly small quantities, and enough to equip the panzer divisions.

Surely they should have been designing AFV's with tailored to their limited resources. The Tiger II may have had a high ratio of tanks destroyed, but the assault guns and tank destroyers remained the biggest Tank killer in the German inventory.


But they made 1,300 tigers I, while making 10,000 stugs. How many claymed kills each of these categories had? A tiger cost 250,000 Rm, while a stug cost 100,000 Rm. If the tiger traded 2.5 times better than the stug for the same enemies, its cost is worth it.

What about the fuel? Well, you must compute the consumption of fuel of a tiger, the consumption of fuel for other tanks and their combat effectiveness, before claiming that the tiger was a retarded investment.
Last edited by Guaporense on 28 Dec 2009 22:40, edited 1 time in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by LWD » 28 Dec 2009 22:31

Guaporense wrote:
Damper wrote:I've read that particularly with the Tiger II, that the quality of the armour could at times be extremely poor, so that rounds that were deflected would often cause cracking.


That`s because of loss of raw material sources for making decent armor plates by late 1944. That was not a fault in design.

Also that as with the Panther the final drive as well as other parts with high stresses place on them, needed constant replacing. Also there was just the genuine poor reliabilty of both the Tiger I and II engine failure, due to poor quality engine parts espeically gaskets.


Problems related to the state of Germany in 1944.

A good design is designed to work for the army that's building it. This just highlights the German tendency to subotimize their designs.
... 1- Lack of resources? Well, you should use your resources the best way. You can use the resources to make thousands of crappy tanks, like the sherman, or to make good tanks in smaller quantity.

The Sherman was most emphatically not a "crappy" tank. Indeed I can't think of a single WWII tank that would have worked out better for the US than the Sherman. That's not saying it was the best design for the Germans but that's a different thing.
I think that considering the favorable ratios of kills for the tigers and panthers fully justify their production and cost.

Precisely the sort of thinking that leads to subotimization. Tanks had many things to do other than kill oposing tanks. Note that some German generals pushed for more Pz IVs and Stugs rather than the cats.
2- Well, they produced 8,000 of these tanks. And they planned to produce 600 panthers per month and about 150 tigers. Hardly small quantities, and enough to equip the panzer divisions.

And how many saw service? Again you illustrate one of the flaws of the German war machine. The planned to produce this and that and indeed in some cases did produce it but couldn't get it to the front or supply it with fuel or crew.
Surely they should have been designing AFV's with tailored to their limited resources. The Tiger II may have had a high ratio of tanks destroyed, but the assault guns and tank destroyers remained the biggest Tank killer in the German inventory.

But they made 1,300 tigers I, while making 10,000 stugs. How many claymed kills each of these categories had? A tiger cost 250,000 Rm, while a stug cost 100,000 Rm. If the tiger traded 2.5 times better than the stug for the same enemies, its cost is worth it.

Was it? I would argue not. By your logic 25 tigers would be equal to 100 Stugs. However if the stug has an availibilty rate of 80% and the tiger 60% you now have 15 tigers or 80 stugs on the front line. But the 80 sugs can be 80 places or if you are pairing them 40 places while the tigers can be at at most 15. Of course the Stugs also take more crew and burn more fuel. You could also put the stugs in pairs of pairs in 20 places so that 2 could fire and displace while being covererd by another pair and things don't get as ciritcal as quickly if one is taken out or breaks down. And yet again tanks had other things to do than fight other tanks. Most US tanks for instance were not killed by German tanks.

Damper
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 13:18

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by Damper » 30 Dec 2009 00:05

Guaporense wrote:
Damper wrote:I've read that particularly with the Tiger II, that the quality of the armour could at times be extremely poor, so that rounds that were deflected would often cause cracking.


That`s because of loss of raw material sources for making decent armor plates by late 1944. That was not a fault in design.




I'm sorry but my whole point was that because they didn't have the resources to produce enough decent armour plate ... then why insist on doing it anyway? There were other weapon systems that were crying out for the resources as they were ... why manufacture a Tank that's defective from its first day of service? Likewise with the Panther who designs a tank that needs its final drive replacing every 150km? what kind of burden must that have placed on unit workshops...

by late 1944 the Germans had lost their prime source of Tungsten in Spain, also the loss of Swedish Iron ore was on the Horizon, not to mention the oil fields in Romania ...

So sure Sensible economic planners would have sat down totted up their available resources and then assigned them to appropriate weapons programs..

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by Guaporense » 30 Dec 2009 19:31

Damper wrote:So sure Sensible economic planners would have sat down totted up their available resources and then assigned them to appropriate weapons programs..


If they were sensible strategic planners, they would have surrendered by that stage in the war.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by Guaporense » 01 Jan 2010 23:09

The Tiger was very costly? Well, in 1943, Ger`s war budget was 110 billion RM, a tiger cost 250,800 RM. If you compare to the B-29, with cost 640,000 dollars and US`s swar budget was 87 billion dollars in 1944, we can see that Tiger consisted in a smaller part of Ger`s budget than the B-29.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by Jon G. » 05 Jan 2010 21:12

Off-topic posts have been split off to viewtopic.php?f=34&t=161189

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by bf109 emil » 07 Jan 2010 08:47

Guaporense wrote:
Damper wrote:So sure Sensible economic planners would have sat down totted up their available resources and then assigned them to appropriate weapons programs..


If they were sensible strategic planners, they would have surrendered by that stage in the war.


Hence they where not, even when Germany had been reduced to destruction, Hitler still resisted until Berlin was reduced to ashes/ruble and was captured even then he was willing to allow the German people to perish likewise under this unnecessary ideologies...sensible planners he and his NSDAP where not nor was sensible party of the deciding factor.

penn
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 04 Dec 2009 13:38

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by penn » 14 Jan 2010 00:38

I've long held the belief the German economyplayed a major factor in Nazi Germany's defeat, the roots of which began with the restrictive repatriations forced on the economy by the treaty of Versailles.

Think of the knock on effects all through the German economy which lasted well into the war. As much as the Germans ultimately failed on the battle field, the German economy was ill equipped to sustain the war effort.

penn :D

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by bf109 emil » 14 Jan 2010 08:32

penn wrote:I've long held the belief the German economyplayed a major factor in Nazi Germany's defeat, the roots of which began with the restrictive repatriations forced on the economy by the treaty of Versailles.

Think of the knock on effects all through the German economy which lasted well into the war. As much as the Germans ultimately failed on the battle field, the German economy was ill equipped to sustain the war effort.

penn :D


unsure why economically once war had started played such a huge role...German industry for the most part was hampered by logistics and industry capacity as opposed to economically...

The Tiger was very costly? Well, in 1943, Ger`s war budget was 110 billion RM, a tiger cost 250,800 RM. If you compare to the B-29, with cost 640,000 dollars and US`s swar budget was 87 billion dollars in 1944, we can see that Tiger consisted in a smaller part of Ger`s budget than the B-29.


true, but by this same thinking the TIGER was hamstrung by construction and a sheer demand of IIRC a 100,000 man hours to build...is their any reference to say if Germany had looted more money Tiger, Panther production would have increased in accordance to this new found wealth? Germany's military might was due to it's industrial capacity, not the value it spent per armament...by this simple flawed logic would Germany had been able to produce 1 B-17's (which IIRC cost around 500,000) or 1 Lancaster if they diverted the Tiger Tank wasting of funds to building 4 engine heavy bombers and if costs where the determining factor could have made 1 B-17/Lancaster for what it cost for 2 Tiger Tanks...If this is the case what a waste as they should have stuck with the Mk IV saved some money and made a strategic air-force instead of useless Tiger Tanks!

penn
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 04 Dec 2009 13:38

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by penn » 16 Jan 2010 05:37

The German economy was perhaps the major reason industry suffered after the prolonged 'Depression' Germany suffered until Hitler's economic miracle.

German industry had little chance to modernize in the years before the war. Many factories were old and outdated, in some cases modern production line techniques had not been implemented. In fact modern manufacturing process was not introduced until 1943. Milch was horrified by the state of German industry when he took over from Udet.

Another restriction for the German war effort was the appalling state of the railways, which was never entirely put right. This situation while due to a variety of factors, was also caused by a poor performing economy

penn :D

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by bf109 emil » 16 Jan 2010 06:07

penn
The German economy was perhaps the major reason industry suffered after the prolonged 'Depression' Germany suffered until Hitler's economic miracle.

German industry had little chance to modernize in the years before the war. Many factories were old and outdated, in some cases modern production line techniques had not been implemented.


but was not the Nazi party part of the problem, i.e. they reduced large profitable and productive farms to smaller collective one, both less productive and profitable?

Major stores where diverted to smaller and more individual ones?

Industry by most means would have benefited as did more modern ones from large investors and influx of capital, something the NSDAP frowned upon from capitalists making money and profits from the labor of others, yet by not doing this the NSDAP/Hitler forced factories to remain individually owned and could never benefit from the influx of capital nor the aid of mass production, but rather preferred individual factory owners whom they could control and grant contracts to as opposed to free industry which would have expanded and allowed industries to modernize

In fact modern manufacturing process was not introduced until 1943. Milch was horrified by the state of German industry when he took over from Udet.


and many never did modernize or update, for instance in the Junkers factory, skilled labor still hand riveted plane parts rather then updating to machines to do this, as well as introduce mass production and streamline factories as in the Ju88 IIRC there was some 4,000 different size bolts, screw instead of standardizing and each being hand assembled or installed...these and many others which never took place did not because of Versailles as the factories had 6 yrs. prior to fix these issues before going to war, but because of flawed NSDAP policies to enforce or allow this to happen

Meyer
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 May 2006 22:05
Location: a1

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by Meyer » 16 Jan 2010 06:09

Damper wrote:
For example the Tiger tank... The UK and Britain with near limitless sources of oil and strategic materials refused to develop Heavy tanks largely because of their logistic demands... So why did Germany with a fuel crises keep producing a resource hungry fuel guzzler? ?


The fuel consumption of tanks, was a very small part in the whole fuel problem of Germany, so small that I would qualify it as negligible. Just consider this: a Panzer Division had almost 4000 vehicles, including 150 tanks. Now, if you change those tanks for lighter models that have consume half of the fuel than the former, how much fuel you would save? Not much, specially considering that the tanks are not gonna ride the same distance that the other vehicles, and that a good percentage would be in need of repair at all times, more than the other vehicles.
And this is only looking at a panzer unit. Now, if you look at the whole picture, tha fuel consumed by the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine, the industry, etc etc..., as I said, negligible.

So my question is if the Nazi's had abandoned projects such as the Tiger, Panther certain artillery pieces, and the V2, and instead concentrated on cheap easily produced weapons e.g. more tank destroyers, armoured cars... concrete fortifications (which was all a lot of the metal produced was fit for) would this have allowed the Reich to last longer than it did?


yeah, they should have stayed with the Panzer I... and perhaps the war would have ended in 1942 :D

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Failures in the Nazi economy..

Post by bf109 emil » 16 Jan 2010 13:44

Guaporense wrote:The Tiger was very costly? Well, in 1943, Ger`s war budget was 110 billion RM, a tiger cost 250,800 RM.
close, but add another 49,200 RM according to Henschel Tiger costs where 300,000 RM to produce and along with this increase in price resulted from...early model requiring more goodiesThe first 500 (495) Tigers were equipped with a snorkelling device allowing them to travel underwater as deep as 4-5 meters for 2.5 hours. Later models were provided with wading equipment allowing them to travel underwater only as deep as 1.3 meters. Tigers produced from November 1942 to August 1943 were fitted with full tropical air filter ‘Feifel’ system.

but they did turn a profit on one Tiger...lol...which they never delivered and in turned where loaned it back to fight...On June 7th of 1943, Japanese ambassador in Germany, General Oshima was shown a Tiger from sPzAbt 502. Single Tiger was then sold to Japan in 1943, but was never delivered due to the war situation and was loaned by Japan to the German Army (sSSPzAbt 101). Henschel charged Japan 645.000 Reichsmarks for fully equipped Tiger (with ammunition and radio equipment), while the regular price for the same Tiger was only 300.000 Reichsmarks.

Return to “Economy”