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

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by rcocean » 29 Mar 2019 01:19

ljadw wrote:
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 .
Really? The Germans had almost 20 Panzer Divisions at Kursk and only 2500 AFV's. by adding another 2500 tanks the Germans could've brought all 20 Panzer divisions up to 200 tanks each. And allowed the other 1,000 tanks to be split into 10 separate tank battalions and attached to 10 Infantry Divisions for assault purposes. It wouldn't have taken another 100,000 men. It would've made a real difference.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9187
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 29 Mar 2019 09:25

You continue to confound and mix AFV to/with tanks .1500tanks + 2500 tanks = 4000 tanks, not 5000 tanks .
Model had 599 tanks, Manstein 1137 tanks (source : Germany and WWII ) which is a total of 1736 tanks
And even if you count tanks and AG , the result is 2699 on German side and 8200 on Soviet side .A reinforcement by 3500 tanks (as yoiu first said ) or 2500 (as you are saying now ) would still result in a Soviet superiority .
The Soviets had a superiority of 3/1 in AFVs,3/1 in manpower, 5/1 in artillery and 4.5 /1 in aircraft .
More German tanks would change nothing .
2500/3500 additional tanks for the Germans would require a reinforcement of infantry to protect these tanks, of supply forces and supplies which Germany did not have .
2500/3500 additional tanks would even prevent Citadel of occuring : already in the HTL Citadel had been postponed several times because of production and transport problems for the tanks ,more tanks would postpone Citadel even more and the result would be a indefinite delay .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9187
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 29 Mar 2019 10:10

Germany produced 6000 tanks in 1943 . I like to see the proof that it would be possible to produce between March and July 1943 ( 4 months ) an additional number of 2500/3500 tanks, to train the crew and mechanics for these tanks and to send them to the East .
Does anyone know how long it took to build a tank and to train its crew ?

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2652
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Takao » 29 Mar 2019 19:37

ljadw wrote:
28 Mar 2019 19:35
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 ?
Your objections are irrelevant.

1. We are talking about training people,, not countries...Are you implying the Germans are harder to train than Americans? Or are the Germans simply morons incapable of being trained.
2. The US never needed to convert shipyards to make tanks, they simply built new factories to construct what was needed, as did the Germans. The construction of the Chrysler Defense Arsenal began in September, 1940, and by April, 1941, it was rolling out tanks. Fisher Tanks Arsenal was producing tanks in even less time - Construction beginning in November, 1941, and tanks rolling off the line by January, 1942, before the plant was even finished.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2652
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Takao » 29 Mar 2019 19:45

ljadw wrote:
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 ) .
The table is laughable, as I have pointed out...

You said
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
That means, that in every Soviet pre-war tank division there were 210 T-34s.
You further stated that
The 5 MD on the Western Border had 40 tank divisions and 20 mechanised divisions with 12800 tanks
40 tank divisions times 210 T-34s = 8,400 T-34s pre-war.

and that is not including the 4 tank divisions in around Leningrad for another 840 T-34s.

That is almost 10,000 T-34s pre-war.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2652
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Takao » 29 Mar 2019 19:52

ljadw wrote:
29 Mar 2019 10:10
Germany produced 6000 tanks in 1943 . I like to see the proof that it would be possible to produce between March and July 1943 ( 4 months ) an additional number of 2500/3500 tanks, to train the crew and mechanics for these tanks and to send them to the East .
Does anyone know how long it took to build a tank and to train its crew ?
This is very incomplete with regards to the discussion.

When does Germany cease their ship/warship construction? Pre-war? 1939? 1940? 1941? 1942? 1943?
When do they begin converting shipyard production to tank production?
When does Germany construct more tank factories, and how many factories will be constructed?
When are those factories completed?
Does Germany maintain their military conscription as they did historically, or are they increased?
What Kreigsmarine sailors will be transferred to the Heer, if any?

How long does it take Germany to build a tank...Look here: http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/tankrep.html

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9187
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 30 Mar 2019 08:14

I know of An gelfire but it does not answer the question ,which is : if the Germans started on January 1 1943 (or another day ) the production of Panther nr 99, when would this Panther be finished ?

Why this question ?
It has been claimed that with 2500/3500 more tanks ,the Germans could have won at Kursk. This implies that
a these tanks would be build between March and June 1943
or b that they had been build before the decision to launch Citadel. But in this case,most of them would have been committed and lost elsewhere,unless one thinks that the Germans would have reserved them for Citadel,for which no decision had been made .
If it took a month to build a tank and to transport him to the East, the Germans had only 3 months to build these 2500/3500 additional tanks that would give them victory at Kursk .
I ask the same question for the training of the crew of a tank : how long did it take ?I suppose it would be longer than the time needed to build a tank .Besides: more tanks imply more crew and more crew imply more training tanks and more instructors .
I do not believe the claim that the Germans could have more tanks at Kursk. Neither do I believe that with more tanks they could have won at Kursk .The claim is only the usual attempt to create an ATL where Germany could have won the war .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9187
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 30 Mar 2019 08:19

Takao wrote:
29 Mar 2019 19:45
ljadw wrote:
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 ) .
The table is laughable, as I have pointed out...

You said
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
That means, that in every Soviet pre-war tank division there were 210 T-34s.
You further stated that
The 5 MD on the Western Border had 40 tank divisions and 20 mechanised divisions with 12800 tanks
40 tank divisions times 210 T-34s = 8,400 T-34s pre-war.

and that is not including the 4 tank divisions in around Leningrad for another 840 T-34s.

That is almost 10,000 T-34s pre-war.
The TOE is the authorized and planned strength/organisation, not the actual one .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9187
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 30 Mar 2019 08:24

Takao wrote:
29 Mar 2019 19:37
ljadw wrote:
28 Mar 2019 19:35
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 ?
Your objections are irrelevant.

1. We are talking about training people,, not countries...Are you implying the Germans are harder to train than Americans? Or are the Germans simply morons incapable of being trained.
2. The US never needed to convert shipyards to make tanks, they simply built new factories to construct what was needed, as did the Germans. The construction of the Chrysler Defense Arsenal began in September, 1940, and by April, 1941, it was rolling out tanks. Fisher Tanks Arsenal was producing tanks in even less time - Construction beginning in November, 1941, and tanks rolling off the line by January, 1942, before the plant was even finished.
Germany had not the means,the empty grounds, the manpower to build new factories on the scale of the US . And closing the submarine yards would not help them: the result would be no submarines and not more tanks .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6402
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Sid Guttridge » 31 Mar 2019 09:09

This discussion is pretty meaningless unless we know if the materials and technology was transferable.

For example, the iron used in submarines was not armour. Tanks need armour. Therefore the armour for the tanks would be in addition to existing armour production, not simply transferred from submarine production.

Nor did submarines carry anti- tank guns, and, even if their 75mm guns were appplicable to tanks they would have equipped only about 10% of the proposed new tanks.

There are presumably other things, such as optics and radios, that were not directly transferable from submarines to tanks on a one-for-one basis.

Do we know if Germany had the spare capacity to produce all the extra armour and guns needed?

Cheers,

SId

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9187
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 31 Mar 2019 09:30

There is also the question of the manpower : the submarines used only a very small part of Germany's workers and of foreign workers .
One example : Lübeck
On April 18 1944 there were in the port of Lübeck 99 factories working for the war industry ,employing 17881 foreign workers (POWs, forced workers,volunteers ) ,only 9 of these factories worked for the KM ,they employed 5958 foreign workers ,which is 33% of the total .

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

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by rcocean » 01 Apr 2019 00:20

This discussion is pretty meaningless unless we know if the materials and technology was transferable.
We already know what's "Transferable". The steel, cooper, tin, aluminum etc. that went into a U-boat is transferable to a Panzer. 88 mm cannon used on a U-boat can be used in a Panzer. Radio equipment? The same. Skilled labor? The same. Fuel? The same. Machine tools? The same. If you can weld on a U-boat, you weld on a Panzer. If you can operate a machine tool to build a U-boat, you can with some training, operate a machine tool to build a Panzer.

Its not a 1-1 transfer. Nor is it, instantaneous.

I'll only speak for myself. I'm NOT asserting that Adolph could have snapped his fingers in July 1943, and suddenly Hamburg shipyards would be turning out Tiger tanks in August 1943. That's absurd. BUT there's no reason why U-boat production could not have been cut back - or limited - in August 1942, and all the raw materials, especially steel, and skilled labor used to expand Panzer production.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9187
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 01 Apr 2019 06:39

Could one increase the tank production by not starting/by stopping the U Boat production ? Answer is no.
Was there a need to increase the tank production = to produce more tanks than were produced ? Answer is no .
Would the increase of the tank production benefit Germany ? Answer is no .
Would stopping the U Boat production benefit the Allies ? Answer is yes . No convoy losses, no need for all those destroyers,etc ..
Would more tanks mean more PzD ? Answer is no .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6402
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Sid Guttridge » 01 Apr 2019 09:55

Hi rcocean,

Certainly many of the skills and materials used on U-boats were also usable on tanks.

However, armour was apparently not one of them. Tanks need lots of it, U-boats had none. Did Germany have the spare capacity to produce the necessary specialist extra armour?

Given that there was only one (sometimes no) main gun on a U-boat and that the proposal is that each U-boat not built could result in 20 tanks, there is clearly a massive shortfall of armament.

Each tank also required a much smaller radio of a completely different sort to a U-boat. This would also, therefore, mean finding most of them from somewhere else. Presumably a similar question arises with engines. Aircraft engines were usable in tanks, but U-boat engines were not.

To switch production from U-boats to tanks would require rejigging Germany's production processes quite near to raw material sources. This takes time and, like moving factories underground, it initially inevitably leads to a short term loss of production.

Cheers,

Sid.

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

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by rcocean » 01 Apr 2019 22:08

Sid Guttridge wrote:
01 Apr 2019 09:55
Hi rcocean,

Certainly many of the skills and materials used on U-boats were also usable on tanks.

However, armour was apparently not one of them. Tanks need lots of it, U-boats had none. Did Germany have the spare capacity to produce the necessary specialist extra armour?

Given that there was only one (sometimes no) main gun on a U-boat and that the proposal is that each U-boat not built could result in 20 tanks, there is clearly a massive shortfall of armament.

Each tank also required a much smaller radio of a completely different sort to a U-boat. This would also, therefore, mean finding most of them from somewhere else. Presumably a similar question arises with engines. Aircraft engines were usable in tanks, but U-boat engines were not.

To switch production from U-boats to tanks would require rejigging Germany's production processes quite near to raw material sources. This takes time and, like moving factories underground, it initially inevitably leads to a short term loss of production.

Cheers,

Sid.
Yes, well we agree - "it would have taken time". Although if it had been done soon enough, say in 1942, it would not have been a matter of "Transferring" but of sending the raw materials, steel, and skilled labor to expand Panzer production instead of expanding the planned U-boat production. BTW, A U-boat required at least 750 tons of high quality steel, a Panzer IV needed 30 tons. Armor platting is just specially treated high-quality rolled steel. Hitler wanted to vastly expand Panzer production after June 1940, but was told it would affect U-boat production and other armament production. So, he backed off.

The German economy had many bottlenecks but the most important - after oil - was rolled steel and other metals. Steel was required for locomotives, synthetic oil plants, guns, tanks, u-boats, ammunition and bombs. The German Army, Navy, and Luftwaffe all demanded more and more, but choices had to be made.

Return to “Economy”