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.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 9193
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 26 Mar 2019 08:29

About the 'skilled "workers :
On June 1 1944 there were at the Schichau yard in Danzig 7650 workers,of whom 1551 (some 20 % ) were skilled labour,the others ?
1200 women
2888 foreigners
1266 POWs
430 Germans from the concentration camp of Stutthoff
Thus, what would be the benefit of closing Schichau ?

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6405
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Sid Guttridge » 26 Mar 2019 11:32

Hi ljadw,

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

You replied, without explanation, "Sid. This one is questionable."

At what stage of the war could Germany have done with less U-boats and less tanks?

A puzzled Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9193
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 26 Mar 2019 12:31

You said that at every stage of the war Germany needed more tanks and more submarines .
IMO this is questionable : why would Germany need more submarines in June 1943 than in May 1943 ? More submarines do not mean more sinkings of MV.
I also do not see what would be the benefit for Germany if in September 1943 it had more tanks than it had in the HTL .More tanks do not mean more panzer divisions and the strength of a PzD did not /not only depend on the number of tanks .
1 PzD had 250 tanks in May 1940 while 10 PzD had only 150 tanks;if 10 PzD had also 250 tanks, would it have done better ?
In May 1940 the PzD had on the average 300 tanks each, in June 1941 200 .
Let's assume the opposite : in May 1940 200 and in June 1941 300 .Would the result have been failure for Fall Gelb and success for Barbarossa ?
In 1943 Germany produced 5520 Pz IV,PzV and Pz VI. In 1944 8001 . But the military situation was worse in 1944 than in 1943 .
In January 1942 there were 91 front-line submarines ( not all operational ) ,in March 1943 222 ( not all operational ) ,was this increase needed ? And why ? And also : how much more of both were needed ?And when ?Was a small increase in 1940 not more needed than a big increase in 1944 ?
PS : I did not say that Germany could have done with less U -boats and tanks at a certain stage ,although one could argue that there was no need for more submarines in 1945 and that in 1944 more artillery would be better than more tanks .
Some people have argued that Germany needed more jets . Why ? Or even nuclear weapons . Why ?

rcocean
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by rcocean » 27 Mar 2019 01:25

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 .
Wrong. An Engineer building U-boat Engines knows how to build Diesel Engines and can be re-trained to build Tank Engines. A welder and Machine tool operator can be retrained to work on Panzers instead of U-boats. The man who builds radios for U-boats can be retrained to build radios for Panzers. The man who knows how to make U-boat batteries can be retrained to make Batteries for Panzers (assuming they had any). The men who builds Artillery that goes on a U-boat, can be retrained easily to build Artillery that goes on a Panzer.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by rcocean » 27 Mar 2019 01:31

ljadw wrote:
26 Mar 2019 12:31
You said that at every stage of the war Germany needed more tanks and more submarines .
IMO this is questionable : why would Germany need more submarines in June 1943 than in May 1943 ? More submarines do not mean more sinkings of MV.
I also do not see what would be the benefit for Germany if in September 1943 it had more tanks than it had in the HTL .More tanks do not mean more panzer divisions and the strength of a PzD did not /not only depend on the number of tanks .
First of all More Tanks and AFV's were used for more than Panzer Divisions. The Panzer Grenadier Divisions used Tanks and Assault guns were used in battlions and attached to Infantry in order to provide anti-tank support and offensive ability. Second, your statement is contradicted by the actual practice of the USSR and Allies. Both of them kept their Armored Divisions at the 200-250 tank level. Why? According to you they only needed 150 per Division!

If the Germans could've had 5,000 tanks at Kursk - instead of 1,500, they'd have won the battle.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9193
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 27 Mar 2019 06:33

rcocean wrote:
27 Mar 2019 01:25
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 .
Wrong. An Engineer building U-boat Engines knows how to build Diesel Engines and can be re-trained to build Tank Engines. A welder and Machine tool operator can be retrained to work on Panzers instead of U-boats. The man who builds radios for U-boats can be retrained to build radios for Panzers. The man who knows how to make U-boat batteries can be retrained to make Batteries for Panzers (assuming they had any). The men who builds Artillery that goes on a U-boat, can be retrained easily to build Artillery that goes on a Panzer.
Easily ? :lol:

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9193
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 27 Mar 2019 07:11

rcocean wrote:
27 Mar 2019 01:31
ljadw wrote:
26 Mar 2019 12:31
You said that at every stage of the war Germany needed more tanks and more submarines .
IMO this is questionable : why would Germany need more submarines in June 1943 than in May 1943 ? More submarines do not mean more sinkings of MV.
I also do not see what would be the benefit for Germany if in September 1943 it had more tanks than it had in the HTL .More tanks do not mean more panzer divisions and the strength of a PzD did not /not only depend on the number of tanks .
First of all More Tanks and AFV's were used for more than Panzer Divisions. The Panzer Grenadier Divisions used Tanks and Assault guns were used in battlions and attached to Infantry in order to provide anti-tank support and offensive ability. Second, your statement is contradicted by the actual practice of the USSR and Allies. Both of them kept their Armored Divisions at the 200-250 tank level. Why? According to you they only needed 150 per Division!

If the Germans could've had 5,000 tanks at Kursk - instead of 1,500, they'd have won the battle.
The USSR did not keep its tank divisions at the 200/250 level : in June 1941 they had tank divisions without tanks and tank divisions with too many tanks : the 2 tank divisions of the 3th Mechanised Corps had 651 tanks, which is too much.
German PzD had 400 tanks in Poland , 300 in France and some 200 in Russia in 1941 .The PzD of 1941 did as well as the PzD of 1939 and 1940 .The power of a PzD does not depend (only ) on the number of tanks .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9193
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 27 Mar 2019 07:45

The pre war ToE of a Soviet tank Division was 10949 men and 375 tanks
BT7 26
KV1 and 2 63
T34 210
T26 76
The 5 MD on the Western Border had 40 tank divisions and 20 mechanised divisions with 12800 tanks
The MD of Leningrad had 4 tank and 2 mechanised divisions with 1857 tanks !
The Soviet tank divisions has too many taks and too less of everything else : manpower, artillery, trucks, supply unis , infantry , etc and the result was that they almost immediately collapsed .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9193
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 27 Mar 2019 08:59

rcocean wrote:
27 Mar 2019 01:31

If the Germans could've had 5,000 tanks at Kursk - instead of 1,500, they'd have won the battle.
With 5000 tanks,Kursk would have been a disaster for Germany,because 3500 additional tanks would demand 100000 + men for supply and protection which would have decreased the strength of the artillery and infantry . Kursk was mainly a battle of infantry as were all battles .Tanks had only a secundary role at Kursk .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6405
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Sid Guttridge » 28 Mar 2019 10:58

Hi ljadw,

You post, "More submarines do not mean more sinkings of MV." In theory, maybe not, but, all other things being equal, in practice they do mean more likelihood of more sinkings, because more vessels could spread U-boat warfare into areas beyond those dominated by the latest Allied countermeasures, which, in turn, means a further disproportional diversion of Allied resources from the decisive theatres of war.

You [post, "More tanks do not mean more panzer divisions and the strength of a PzD did not /not only depend on the number of tanks." Again, in theory, maybe not. However, all tanks do not necessarily have to be in panzer divisions (indeed, large numbers weren't) and a panzer division without tanks is more a motorized infantry division than a panzer division. So, in practice, more tanks means greater armoured strength, however organized.

You ask, "if 10 PzD had also 250 tanks, would it have done better?" All other things being equal, presumably yes.

You post, "In 1943 Germany produced 5520 Pz IV,PzV and Pz VI. In 1944 8001. But the military situation was worse in 1944 than in 1943." So? Doesn't this imply, all other things being equal, that more tanks were needed earlier, not that less tanks were needed later?

You post, "Was a small increase in 1940 not more needed than a big increase in 1944?" Perhaps, but both were an increase.

You post, "Some people have argued that Germany needed more jets . Why ? Or even nuclear weapons . Why ?" These are only sensible questions if one thinks Germany ought not to have been trying to win the war to the bitter end. If Nazi Germany wasn't going to grasp every possible advantage to win or survive, what was the point of going to war in the first place? War is not a handicap competition.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2655
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Takao » 28 Mar 2019 15:20

ljadw wrote:
27 Mar 2019 06:33
rcocean wrote:
27 Mar 2019 01:25
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 .
Wrong. An Engineer building U-boat Engines knows how to build Diesel Engines and can be re-trained to build Tank Engines. A welder and Machine tool operator can be retrained to work on Panzers instead of U-boats. The man who builds radios for U-boats can be retrained to build radios for Panzers. The man who knows how to make U-boat batteries can be retrained to make Batteries for Panzers (assuming they had any). The men who builds Artillery that goes on a U-boat, can be retrained easily to build Artillery that goes on a Panzer.
Easily ? :lol:
Fairly certain of it...

Look at the American factories that were producing locomotives and then began producing tanks; ALCO, Baldwin Locomotive Works, Lima Locomotive Works.

Or those that produced railroad cars...Pressed Steel Car Company, Pacific Car and Foundry Company, and Pullman Standard.

Of course there is also Bethlehem Steel who's various factories produced mostly anything from battleships to tanks.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2655
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Takao » 28 Mar 2019 15:38

ljadw wrote:
27 Mar 2019 07:45
The pre war ToE of a Soviet tank Division was 10949 men and 375 tanks
BT7 26
KV1 and 2 63
T34 210
T26 76
The 5 MD on the Western Border had 40 tank divisions and 20 mechanised divisions with 12800 tanks
The MD of Leningrad had 4 tank and 2 mechanised divisions with 1857 tanks !
The Soviet tank divisions has too many taks and too less of everything else : manpower, artillery, trucks, supply unis , infantry , etc and the result was that they almost immediately collapsed .
This is absolutely laughable...210*40=8,775 T-34s at the start of Barbarossa :roll:

Care to try again with some realistic numbers.
http://armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/formations.htm

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9193
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 28 Mar 2019 19:28

This is not laughable : ToE is not 210 X 40 .
The ToE of a Mechanised Corps was in 1941 1031 tanks and 36100 men ( A MC was 2 tank and 1 mechanised division).
The ToE of a MC was in 1944 16438 men and 246 tanks .
But in both cases,the number of tanks and men was only exceptionally reached .There were in 1941 tank divisions with 0 tanks and other tank divisions with much too many tanks.
Example : 5 MC in 1941 : 17 and 19 tank division and 109 mot.division .17 tank division had 413 tanks .
There is a list of all Soviet tank divisions and mot.divisions in 1941 with the number of tanks and manpower,but I have no time to type them all . There were in total 61 tank and 31 mot.divisions with 23295 tanks ,but for most of them the tank strength was different (as it was for the Germans ) .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9193
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 28 Mar 2019 19:35

Takao wrote:
28 Mar 2019 15:20
ljadw wrote:
27 Mar 2019 06:33
rcocean wrote:
27 Mar 2019 01:25
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 .
Wrong. An Engineer building U-boat Engines knows how to build Diesel Engines and can be re-trained to build Tank Engines. A welder and Machine tool operator can be retrained to work on Panzers instead of U-boats. The man who builds radios for U-boats can be retrained to build radios for Panzers. The man who knows how to make U-boat batteries can be retrained to make Batteries for Panzers (assuming they had any). The men who builds Artillery that goes on a U-boat, can be retrained easily to build Artillery that goes on a Panzer.
Easily ? :lol:
Fairly certain of it...

Look at the American factories that were producing locomotives and then began producing tanks; ALCO, Baldwin Locomotive Works, Lima Locomotive Works.

Or those that produced railroad cars...Pressed Steel Car Company, Pacific Car and Foundry Company, and Pullman Standard.

Of course there is also Bethlehem Steel who's various factories produced mostly anything from battleships to tanks.
2 objections :
1 Germany is not USA
2 The example of tanks instead of locomotives is not correct ; correct would be an example of a US factory that made submarines/surface ships and suddenly was switching to the production of tanks : did any of Kaiser's factories stop with building MV and switch to tanks ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9193
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 28 Mar 2019 19:41

About the Soviet tank strength in June 1941 ,
the Military District of Leningrad had 4 tank and 2 mech.divisions with 1857 tanks
the MD of the Baltics : 4 tank and 2 mech.divisions with 1551 tanks
the Western MD :12 tank and 6 mech.divisions with 2958 tanks
the MD of Kiev 16 tank and 8 mech,divisions with 5465 tanks
the MD of Odessa 4 tank and 2 mech divisions with 1011 tanks

Return to “Economy”