Failures in the Nazi economy..

[Damper]

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

My arguement is that as brilliant a design as the Tiger and Panther were they simply weren't capable of manufacturing them to the spec required... Poor quality armour and having to change the final drive of a tank every 150 km as with the Panther is ridiculous. My understanding of operations with the Panther and TIger were that most were destroyed by their own crews rather than enemy action, Ironically this is sometimes offered up as prove of their supposed invincibility rather than as a failure of the tanks themselves.

I think if the design process had stipulate that the finished equipment must be built using the available resources they would have been able to produce a credible successor to the Panzer IV.

I mean if you're not capable of producing high quality armour plate or sophisticated transmissions and gearing then why design a tank that requires both?

[Meyer]

The Tiger and Panther were very capable tanks, but only if Germany was capable of building them in sufficient numbers and then fueling them, which they weren't.

I mean instead of the Tiger and Panther maybe they would have been better with a simple evoloutinary step up from the Panzer IV which they could then produce in much higher numbers. Or they could have turned to less fuel hungry armoured cars of which they had probably the best designs of any combatant nation.

.

Germany lost the war, so obviously was incapable of produce enough tanks, or anything. Nevertheless, starting in april 1944, they were able to build a higher number of Panthers than Pzkw IV. And are you serious about going to armoured cars instead of tanks? again, that's a nice way to lose the war in before 1945...

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.

I'm not sure if that's true, but even if it was, an assault gun is not a tank, and when it was used as such, it did not perform very well (see Panzertruppen vol2). So no, changing Tigers for Stugs was not an answer.

My understanding of operations with the Panther and TIger were that most were destroyed by their own crews rather than enemy action, Ironically this is sometimes offered up as prove of their supposed invincibility rather than as a failure of the tanks themselves.

That could be taken as something positive or negative... but, the main reason for that was not related to the quality of the tanks: being on the defensive.

After the disaster of British tank design early in the war, they did seem to learn their lesson. The sense of focus that made them design tanks according to their circumstances would have served the Germans well, who seemed to have totally insulated themselves from their economic realities.

I don't think the British could give lessons to how make tanks in ww2 to the Germans... c'mon.

My arguement is that as brilliant a design as the Tiger and Panther were they simply weren't capable of manufacturing them to the spec required... Poor quality armour and having to change the final drive of a tank every 150 km as with the Panther is ridiculous.

I'm sure they have thier share of problems, but still, the Germans were losing less tanks than the oposition, so I guess they were doing something right...

[Jon G.]

The part about Rommel, tanks and AT guns now has its own thread at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=162424

[nebelwerferXXX]

Nice Topic !

[nebelwerferXXX]

Historically, the Nazi economy produced 9,000 Panzer IV tanks. Instead by producing the 1,350 Tiger I tanks, 484 Tiger II tanks and 5,000 Panthers, what would be the nearest equivalent in numbers if the Nazi economy concentrated largely on Panzer IV tanks aside from 9,000 Panzer IV tanks already produced ?

[Kingfish]

Historically, the Nazi economy produced 9,000 Panzer IV tanks. Instead by producing the 1,350 Tiger I tanks, 484 Tiger II tanks and 5,000 Panthers, what would be the nearest equivalent in numbers if the Nazi economy concentrated largely on Panzer IV tanks aside from 9,000 Panzer IV tanks already produced ?

You mean ignore the tactical realities of the ever-evolving battlefield and continue to produce Mark IVs in lieu of the big cats?

[nebelwerferXXX]

Did Nazi Germany exported small arms, Panzer tanks, half-tracks, trucks, motorcycles, howitzers, PAK guns, aircraft, bombs, field radios and ammunition to other countries before the start of WW II ?

[Ironmachine]

Yes. For example, Spain received all the items in your question.

[nebelwerferXXX]

For used probably in the 1936 Spanish Civil War. Aside from Spain, what other countries ? Going back to the Spanish Civil War, in small arms including MGs, what were the quantities delivered ? A good guess or estimate would be acceptable as a basis. Thanks !

[ljadw]

Did Nazi Germany exported small arms, Panzer tanks, half-tracks, trucks, motorcycles, howitzers, PAK guns, aircraft, bombs, field radios and ammunition to other countries before the start of WW II ?

Yes,to China .
From 1934 to 1939,the Wehrmacht received 84,172 trucks,61,796 passenger cars and 68,807 motorcycles,while 57,142 trucs,246,569 passenger cars and 110336 motorcycles were exported .
To which countries ? IMHO,to every country (including the SU),that was willing to buy them .
Source :The German War Economy :the motorisation myth P 123

[ljadw]

From the same sources(on P 153)the % of motorcycles,passenger cars and trucks that was exported
Motorcycles :
1934:2.8%
1935:4.7 %
1936:8.2%
1937:13.5%
1938:17.2 %
1939/16.5 %
Passenger cars (same years):7.7%,9.8,12.4,21.5,22.2,16.5 :the % of PC going to the export always was bigger than the % going to the Wehrmacht
Trucks (same years):7.9,9.1,9.5,17.8,15.7,16
We see that in 1939 1/6 of the trucks,MC and PC was exported .

[ljadw]

Export of tanks :300 Pz IV and 231 Pz 38(t)
Artillery :the 7.5 cm Fieldkanone 38 was produced for export to Brazil.

[ljadw]

And,from this Forum(Armaments of China and Siam prior to 1949,Part I),but cited on WWIIForum by Brndirt 1:
Exported to China:
the 8 cm sGrW-34 Mortar
the 3.7 cm Pak 35-36 anti-tank gun .

[nebelwerferXXX]

Exports: 1934-39.
57,142 trucks, 246,569 passenger cars and 110,336 motorcycles.
300 Panzer IV tanks and 231 Panzer 38(t) tanks.

For comparison purposes:
The Wehrmacht received 84,172 trucks, 61,796 passenger cars and 68,800 motorcycles.
January 1939. The 'Z-Plan' cost 33-billion RM. The Z-Plan was a white elephant program, it did not contributed anything good to Hitler's war effort.

Thanks !

[Jabberwocky]

The 'Z-Plan' cost 33-billion RM.

Plan-Z never cost RZM33 billion, as work on it halted less than four months into the war, in favour of U-boats.

The Z-Plan was a white elephant program, it did not contributed anything good to Hitler's war effort.

Hardly. Most of the capital ships in German service were laid down well before Plan-Z was finalised, and the 800-unit Kriegsmarine plan was rapidly abandoned.

You could realistically replace the work 'Z-Plan' with the words 'German surface fleet' in your sentence.