Panzers instead of U-boats

[gracie4241]

The USSBS and the British equivalent postwar study found on average(among different tank/assault gun types) a UBoat cost in labor and materials roughly 20 tanks.Since the germans finished around 1200 UBoats, and had started construction on, or had destroyed by bombing,another 300 +, the 1500 UBoats "opportunity Cost" was 30,000 tanks and assault guns throughout the whole war(200 panzer divisions!!!) Remember the limiting factor on armament production was labor(possible 2nd and 3rd shifts) and raw materials (steel). According to Tooze the german naval program(primarily Uboats) absorbed more resources(1939-43) than the total german AFV program until the emergency Adolf Hitler tank program was announced in January 1943.Clearly the german tank program potential was MUCH higher than the actual one.By 1944 the germans produced around 19,000 AFV's, with Allied bombing costing a 30% drop(speer ministry records)-in other words 25,000 AFV(by weight more than the soviet(alleged) production. This does NOT include 12,000 APC built in 1944 as well-. zero by the soviets btw.Germany was fighting a second front from the gitgo(third front if you look at the heavy caliber anti aircraft guns produced, and the manpower absorbed). German resources were stretched to the max

[ljadw]

The USSBS and the British equivalent postwar study found on average(among different tank/assault gun types) a UBoat cost in labor and materials roughly 20 tanks.Since the germans finished around 1200 UBoats, and had started construction on, or had destroyed by bombing,another 300 +, the 1500 UBoats "opportunity Cost" was 30,000 tanks and assault guns throughout the whole war(200 panzer divisions!!!) Remember the limiting factor on armament production was labor(possible 2nd and 3rd shifts) and raw materials (steel). According to Tooze the german naval program(primarily Uboats) absorbed more resources(1939-43) than the total german AFV program until the emergency Adolf Hitler tank program was announced in January 1943.Clearly the german tank program potential was MUCH higher than the actual one.By 1944 the germans produced around 19,000 AFV's, with Allied bombing costing a 30% drop(speer ministry records)-in other words 25,000 AFV(by weight more than the soviet(alleged) production. This does NOT include 12,000 APC built in 1944 as well-. zero by the soviets btw.Germany was fighting a second front from the gitgo(third front if you look at the heavy caliber anti aircraft guns produced, and the manpower absorbed). German resources were stretched to the max

The truth is very simple :those who made tanks could not make submarines and those who made submarines could not make tanks .
Thus : 1500 UBoats = 30000 tanks and AG ,is not correct .
If no U Boats were made, the production of tanks would be the same .

[Takao]

The USSBS and the British equivalent postwar study found on average(among different tank/assault gun types) a UBoat cost in labor and materials roughly 20 tanks.Since the germans finished around 1200 UBoats, and had started construction on, or had destroyed by bombing,another 300 +, the 1500 UBoats "opportunity Cost" was 30,000 tanks and assault guns throughout the whole war(200 panzer divisions!!!) Remember the limiting factor on armament production was labor(possible 2nd and 3rd shifts) and raw materials (steel). According to Tooze the german naval program(primarily Uboats) absorbed more resources(1939-43) than the total german AFV program until the emergency Adolf Hitler tank program was announced in January 1943.Clearly the german tank program potential was MUCH higher than the actual one.By 1944 the germans produced around 19,000 AFV's, with Allied bombing costing a 30% drop(speer ministry records)-in other words 25,000 AFV(by weight more than the soviet(alleged) production. This does NOT include 12,000 APC built in 1944 as well-. zero by the soviets btw.Germany was fighting a second front from the gitgo(third front if you look at the heavy caliber anti aircraft guns produced, and the manpower absorbed). German resources were stretched to the max

A lot is wrong with a "simple" comparison.
Where are the Germans going to refine the gasoline needed to fuel 30,000 tanks...The subs used diesel.
Crew differences 1,200 U-boats might have required some 60,000+ men, while 30,000 tanks would require 150,000 men.
Also, associated logistics...Where are the Germans going to get the trucks necessary to supply 200 Panzer Divisions.
Not to mention ammunition production for 200 Panzer Divisions.
Then you have to look at when the submarines were built...the vast majority were built in 1941-44
Then, you have to consider what effect of "No U-Boats at all" will mean to the British and American forces. No need to focus on merchant ship or escort production - all of those materials can be diverted to other, more pressing needs.

So, really, all you are doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Gracie4241,

And how many Allied ships and cargoes did German tanks sink?

How many Allied resources did German tanks divert into building Liberty ships, replacing lost shipping and cargoes, developing new antisubmarine vessels, diverting bombers for anti-submarine operations, consuming construction resources building airfields and harbour defences around the Atlantic, etc., etc.?

The fact is that Germany needed a relatively balanced armed forces to face multiple threats and needed both tanks and U-boats in differing proportions at different stages of the war. What is more, it needed more of both at every stage of the war!

Cheers,

Sid.

[rcocean]

The USSBS and the British equivalent postwar study found on average(among different tank/assault gun types) a UBoat cost in labor and materials roughly 20 tanks.Since the germans finished around 1200 UBoats, and had started construction on, or had destroyed by bombing,another 300 +, the 1500 UBoats "opportunity Cost" was 30,000 tanks and assault guns throughout the whole war(200 panzer divisions!!!)

Yes. There's no doubt the U-boat program cost the Germans thousands of AFVs in 1942-1944. You have the steel. You have the other metals. You have machine tools. You have the skilled labor that is making diesel U-boat engines instead of Tank Engines. U-boat radios and radar instead of Tank radios. And lets not forget the torpedoes which used significant amounts of Cooper and other metals and skilled labor. Not to mention all the time to train 45 U-boat crews - high quality men who could have been trained as Panzer crews. And the amount of diesel fuel used on only 1 U-boat could've fueled 100 Panzers.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi rcocean,

There was undoubtedly some trade off between tank and U-boat construction.

But that is to miss the point that Germany needed both.

Something had to keep the Western Allies at arms length while the USSR was dealt with and tanks weren't going to do that.

I would guess that U-boats were extremely cost effective when their costs are compared with the enormously greater resources the Western Allies had to expend in countering and defeating them.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

The USSBS and the British equivalent postwar study found on average(among different tank/assault gun types) a UBoat cost in labor and materials roughly 20 tanks.Since the germans finished around 1200 UBoats, and had started construction on, or had destroyed by bombing,another 300 +, the 1500 UBoats "opportunity Cost" was 30,000 tanks and assault guns throughout the whole war(200 panzer divisions!!!)

Yes. There's no doubt the U-boat program cost the Germans thousands of AFVs in 1942-1944. You have the steel. You have the other metals. You have machine tools. You have the skilled labor that is making diesel U-boat engines instead of Tank Engines. U-boat radios and radar instead of Tank radios. And lets not forget the torpedoes which used significant amounts of Cooper and other metals and skilled labor. Not to mention all the time to train 45 U-boat crews - high quality men who could have been trained as Panzer crews. And the amount of diesel fuel used on only 1 U-boat could've fueled 100 Panzers.

That is not correct : Blohm & Voss could never make tanks : they could only make submarines : to have more tanks, you need more plants, more staff, more machine tools, more resources,all this would take years .
Besides, there is no proof that Germany needed more tanks,as more tanks would not mean more crew, and more tanks would not give Germany victory in the summer of 1941 .
And how would the German railways transport these tanks,their crew, the needed oil and spare parts from the Pyrenees to the Urals ?

[rcocean]

That is not correct : Blohm & Voss could never make tanks : they could only make submarines : to have more tanks, you need more plants, more staff, more machine tools, more resources,all this would take years .
Besides, there is no proof that Germany needed more tanks,as more tanks would not mean more crew, and more tanks would not give Germany victory in the summer of 1941 .
And how would the German railways transport these tanks,their crew, the needed oil and spare parts from the Pyrenees to the Urals ?

Who said it would "Give Germany victory in summer of 1941" ? Not me. The rest of your statement doesn't address the facts in my post. And if you don't think some skilled labor used to make diesel engine for U-boats couldn't have been used to make tank engines, there's nothing I can do for you.

[ljadw]

That is not correct : Blohm & Voss could never make tanks : they could only make submarines : to have more tanks, you need more plants, more staff, more machine tools, more resources,all this would take years .
Besides, there is no proof that Germany needed more tanks,as more tanks would not mean more crew, and more tanks would not give Germany victory in the summer of 1941 .
And how would the German railways transport these tanks,their crew, the needed oil and spare parts from the Pyrenees to the Urals ?

Who said it would "Give Germany victory in summer of 1941" ? Not me. The rest of your statement doesn't address the facts in my post. And if you don't think some skilled labor used to make diesel engine for U-boats couldn't have been used to make tank engines, there's nothing I can do for you.

You said that 1500 submarines were equal to 30000 tanks ,and that is nonsense ,as is nonsense your claim that the people who made diesel engines for submarines could make tank engines : they could not ,besides 30000 tank engines are not 30000 tanks .
Not only was what you are saying,impossible to do but there was also no need to do it ,There was no need for more tanks on German side in WWII ,more being more than they had in reality .
That the submarines failed does not mean that there was no need for submarines,because submarines were tying allied resources .

[ljadw]

What is more, it needed more of both at every stage of the war!

Cheers,

Sid.

This one is questionable .

[rcocean]

You said that 1500 submarines were equal to 30000 tanks ,and that is nonsense ,as is nonsense your claim that the people who made diesel engines for submarines could make tank engines : they could not ,besides 30000 tank engines are not 30000 tanks .

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I never said that. Better recheck the thread.

[ljadw]

You said that 1500 submarines were equal to 30000 tanks ,and that is nonsense ,as is nonsense your claim that the people who made diesel engines for submarines could make tank engines : they could not ,besides 30000 tank engines are not 30000 tanks .

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I never said that. Better recheck the thread.

It was Gracie 4211 in post 16, but,in post 20 ,you agreed with what he said ,you said : ''yes, there is no doubt the U-Boat program cost the Germans thousands of AFVs in 1942-1944 ."
And that is not correct : there is no proof that the U-Boat program cost the Germans thousands of AFVs in 1942-1944 .
Lockheed did not build tanks in WWII and Blohm & Voss could not make tanks in WWII .
US made 200 submarines and 88000 AFVs . If they did not made submarines, they would not make more AFVs . It is the same for Germany .

[rcocean]

And that is not correct : there is no proof that the U-Boat program cost the Germans thousands of AFVs in 1942-1944 .Lockheed did not build tanks in WWII and Blohm & Voss could not make tanks in WWII . US made 200 submarines and 88000 AFVs . If they did not made submarines, they would not make more AFVs . It is the same for Germany .

I have no idea what your point is. So, I'll just repeat my point. The assertion is NOT that German shipyards would start producing Panzer IVs. The assertion is that machine tools, skilled labor, rolled steel and precious metals used to build U-boats could have been used to build thousands more tanks. AND that the diesel fuel used to power a U-boat could've been used to power AFV's. One U-boat in one one mission used as much fuel as 100 Tanks. Further, the time and energy used to train ONE U boat crew could've trained 8-9 Panzer crews. Unlike the USA, the Germans did not have enough steel/skilled labor/etc. to build unlimited numbers of AFV's AND Warships. Choices were made.

You're response will probably tell me that the Panzer IV didn't use diesel fuel so therefore.... which again misses the point. The Germans would've refined more petroleum into gasoline for Tanks and made less diesel fuel for U-boats. And its the same with the other manufacturing inputs.

[ljadw]

And that is not correct : there is no proof that the U-Boat program cost the Germans thousands of AFVs in 1942-1944 .Lockheed did not build tanks in WWII and Blohm & Voss could not make tanks in WWII . US made 200 submarines and 88000 AFVs . If they did not made submarines, they would not make more AFVs . It is the same for Germany .

I have no idea what your point is. So, I'll just repeat my point. The assertion is NOT that German shipyards would start producing Panzer IVs. The assertion is that machine tools, skilled labor, rolled steel and precious metals used to build U-boats could have been used to build thousands more tanks. AND that the diesel fuel used to power a U-boat could've been used to power AFV's. One U-boat in one one mission used as much fuel as 100 Tanks. Further, the time and energy used to train ONE U boat crew could've trained 8-9 Panzer crews. Unlike the USA, the Germans did not have enough steel/skilled labor/etc. to build unlimited numbers of AFV's AND Warships. Choices were made.

You're response will probably tell me that the Panzer IV didn't use diesel fuel so therefore.... which again misses the point. The Germans would've refined more petroleum into gasoline for Tanks and made less diesel fuel for U-boats. And its the same with the other manufacturing inputs.

Your assertion is wrong,because the skilled labour that was building submarines,could not build tanks : they could only build submarines , They were especialist in the production of submarines, they did know nothing about tanks .The same for the machine tools : machine tools used for the production of submarines, could not be used to produce tanks .
You can't say to the direction of KIA : from tomorrow on ,you will make Fords or Mercedes.The manpower, machine tools,and metals that were used for submarines,could only make submarines, nothing else, no aircraft, no surface ships, no tanks .
And saying that the Germans would have refined more petroleum into gasoline for tanks and made less fiesel fuel for submarines is a handwaving argument ,without proof .

[ljadw]

If the director of a plant that was making Panthers ,received the following news : tomorrow will arrive 200 workers from Blohm and Voss with their machine tools and you must use them to increase the Panther production by 50% , the man would die from laughing : what could he do with 200 people who never had seen a tank ? Where would they live ? Who would care of the housing ? Where would he get the additional power and room space?
Besides : why would these people leave Hamburg for Nürnberg , in Bavaria ? People from Hamburg going to live in Bavaria ?