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: 9434
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 19 Apr 2019 06:56

Globalization41 wrote:
16 Apr 2019 13:01
This would have eventually left the Soviets with less tanks, meaning a better Panzer ratio for the Germans.

6/21/1941; Maritime War Casualties, Tonnage Lost to Date

Globalization41.
This is not correct : a defeat of Britain would have no influence on the number of US tanks received by the US .
And a better panzer ratio would not influence the outcome of the war in the east .

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by gracie4241 » 25 Apr 2019 20:29

They could, and did, transfer workers from plants making one weapon and to another making a different one, regardless of geography if necessary. As far as "okies" go they were worse off.Why you think a totalitarian regime in wartime was limited by some "free market/freedom of choice labor" principles is hard to fathom .Armament workers were part of the war effort.Period.If work on ,say ammunition was cut back,and you worked at a ammunition plant, as it was drastically in late 40 to early 42, you didn't have the option of saying "I don't want to go there and would rather be on unemployment"Are you kidding??Among other things many skilled workers had draft exemptions;I think moving my butt to the boondocks beat being handed a rifle Labor was transferred, and additional shifts created for priority programs, which themselves were modified. quite a bit.I can assure you that if the war in Russia was won in 1941, tank,artillery, truck production could and would have been sharply lowered and U Boat and aircraft production significantly increased; in fact that was the plan and expectation

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9434
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 26 Apr 2019 07:05

gracie4241 wrote:
25 Apr 2019 20:29
They could, and did, transfer workers from plants making one weapon and to another making a different one, regardless of geography if necessary. As far as "okies" go they were worse off.Why you think a totalitarian regime in wartime was limited by some "free market/freedom of choice labor" principles is hard to fathom .Armament workers were part of the war effort.Period.If work on ,say ammunition was cut back,and you worked at a ammunition plant, as it was drastically in late 40 to early 42, you didn't have the option of saying "I don't want to go there and would rather be on unemployment"Are you kidding??Among other things many skilled workers had draft exemptions;I think moving my butt to the boondocks beat being handed a rifle Labor was transferred, and additional shifts created for priority programs, which themselves were modified. quite a bit.I can assure you that if the war in Russia was won in 1941, tank,artillery, truck production could and would have been sharply lowered and U Boat and aircraft production significantly increased; in fact that was the plan and expectation
1 Your knowledge of Germany and the Third Reich is failing . Very much .It was impossible and also a wast of means to move large numbers of specialised workers from Hamburg to Linz .The Gauleiter of Hamburg would protest,and the Austrian Gauleiter would say that there was no housing in Linz for these Prussians .
2 Your last point is also wrong : the decision to decrease army production and to increase the production for the KM and for the LW was already taken BEFORE the start of Barbarossa ; and : the decision was not to produce more aircraft ,because more aircraft without more crew are useless, but it was to increase the strength of the Flak .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9434
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 26 Apr 2019 08:02

The OP is wrong : it was not, never, a question of more tanks and less U Boats, or more production for the Army and less for the KM and LW, but it was the opposite : less production for the Army and more for the LW and KM ,because the war against Britain/the US was more important than the war against the SU .
After the failure to force Britain to give up,Germany prepared two wars : a short war against the SU and a long war against Britain/the USA,hoping that the success of the short war would make the long war superfluous .And the decision for the short war was improvised and taken lately .In the Autumn .
Last point : if Britain had given up before June 1941, Barbarossa would be superfluous and would be cancelled .

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1048
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Globalization41 » 26 Apr 2019 16:22

Actually, it was Hitler's desire from the early 1920s to establish a backyard empire based on agriculture. The Ukraine was Hitler's objective all along. He may have gotten the notion from German war veterans returning from the East after WWI. Many Germans in those days felt that the breadbasket Ukraine was not being exploited to the max. … Before expanding into the Ukraine via Poland, Hitler cleared his flanks and rear, i.e., Norway, France, & Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, Britain was only a minor nuisance. … More U-boats and less battleships might have knocked Britain out of the war. … … Without Britain, the U.S. would have concentrated on the Pacific. Less tanks would have been sent to the Soviet Union. … And even if the quality and quantity of U.S. tanks to Russia were lacking, the Eastern Front would still not have benefited from other war fronts such as strategic bombing, supplies other than tanks, Italy, and France. … … Full employment for the U.S. in WWII resulted in continuous prosperity for America. It didn't work for the U.S.S.R. at first because full-blown socialism was too expensive without capitalism.

Globalization41.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2317
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Richard Anderson » 26 Apr 2019 16:28

gracie4241 wrote:
25 Apr 2019 20:29
They could, and did, transfer workers from plants making one weapon and to another making a different one, regardless of geography if necessary.
They could, and did, do that with Gastarbeiter and Zwangsarbeiter. They had the capability to do that with German workers, but rarely exercised it, at least in the way you think. Regulation of German workers was strict, but in order to keep them in critical positions rather than follow high-paying jobs, especially early on in order to keep agricultural workers on the farm rather than migrating to cities.
(snip) Armament workers were part of the war effort.Period.If work on ,say ammunition was cut back,and you worked at a ammunition plant, as it was drastically in late 40 to early 42,
That misunderstands the reasoning behind that decision. Following the French campaign, massive stocks of ammunition had built up, far in excess of what was believed necessary. As a result, steel allocations to the Heer were cut back drastically, but the excess steel did not go to the other services or to domestic production, it went to export to build up foreign trade. At the same time, the Heer released a large number of draftees back to civilian labor, but that was a temporary measure to meet the demands of the industrialists for labor and lasted a few weeks at most as the preparations for the Soviet campaign. Then on 25 October 1941, in the midst of the huge demand generated by the campaign, a further cut in steel allocations to the Heer was enacted, but then the ammunition program enacted on 10 January shifted steel allocations again.

The ammunition program was the driver, not labor, since it governed where the bulk of the steel resources were going. Ammunition production was cut in 1937 in order to divert steel to other programs, again in the summer of 1939, in the summer of 1940, briefly in fall 1941 before it was ratcheted upwards to meet the critical shortfalls in the East...and then got cut again in summer 1943 in order to compensate for the loss of steel production caused by the early British Ruhr bombing campaign, despite the increasing demands in the East.
(snip)Labor was transferred, and additional shifts created for priority programs, which themselves were modified. quite a bit.I can assure you that if the war in Russia was won in 1941, tank,artillery, truck production could and would have been sharply lowered and U Boat and aircraft production significantly increased; in fact that was the plan and expectation
No, German labor was replaced, by forced labor drawn from occupied countries and POW. German labor went into the Wehrmacht in increasing numbers to meet the demand of the fronts.

Yes, indeed, the decision to reallocate resources to the other services was actually made prematurely on 25 October 1941, but the disarray in German industry caused by coal shortages and the exhaustion of the labor supply due to drafts to the Heer meant the decision was nearly made to declare an industrial holiday in November and December in order to regroup.Instead, the German economy staggered on and it was the massive influx of forced labor and diversion of steel from ammunition production that generated the "armaments miracle" of 1943-1944.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9434
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 26 Apr 2019 18:38

Globalization41 wrote:
26 Apr 2019 16:22
Actually, it was Hitler's desire from the early 1920s to establish a backyard empire based on agriculture. The Ukraine was Hitler's objective all along. He may have gotten the notion from German war veterans returning from the East after WWI. Many Germans in those days felt that the breadbasket Ukraine was not being exploited to the max. … Before expanding into the Ukraine via Poland, Hitler cleared his flanks and rear, i.e., Norway, France, & Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, Britain was only a minor nuisance. … More U-boats and less battleships might have knocked Britain out of the war. … … Without Britain, the U.S. would have concentrated on the Pacific. Less tanks would have been sent to the Soviet Union. … And even if the quality and quantity of U.S. tanks to Russia were lacking, the Eastern Front would still not have benefited from other war fronts such as strategic bombing, supplies other than tanks, Italy, and France. … … Full employment for the U.S. in WWII resulted in continuous prosperity for America. It didn't work for the U.S.S.R. at first because full-blown socialism was too expensive without capitalism.

Globalization41.
Ukraine was never a breadbasket, not of Russia/SU. not of Germany, not of Europe :
Russia, the SU, Germany, Europe survived without the grain of Ukraine.The Soviet grain exports to Europe ( only a part from Ukraine ) were varying between 5 and 2 million tons before the war.The Grain exports to Germany ( not all from Ukraine ) were during the war between 10 and 20% of the German grain harvest .Before the war, the German harvest was at the level of the war harvest, but the imports were lower, and Germany did not starve .
Germany did not depend on Ukrainian grain for its survival .
AND, without Britain, there was no need for war with the SU .

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1048
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Globalization41 » 26 Apr 2019 22:33

Regardless of whether the Ukraine was a breadbasket or not, it was still widely considered by many dictators, Russians, Germans, and economic theorists to be a breadbasket awaiting exploitation. Hitler originally agreed to the Moscow objective in 1941 to get the generals on board politically for the invasion, but he was so obsessed with the breadbasket notion, that a month into the blitz, he ordered his Panzers to turn right toward the Ukraine. … With 2019 hindsight, it appears that the only way to have defeated Britain would have been with more U-boats or a cross-Channel invasion. Without Britain, the U.S. lacked political support for joining European war. Less U.S. supplies for Russia would have meant a better ratio of tanks for Hitler. … If Britain had stayed out of the war and there had been no perceived need for U-boats, then the Germans maybe could have had a few hundred extra Panzers. … … Bunches of divebombers were super cheap compared to tanks, U-boats, or battleships.

Globalization41.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9434
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 27 Apr 2019 08:32

Without Britain (= Britain defeated and occupied ), there was no need for war with the SU ,thus Germany would not need more tanks .Besides,the occupation of Britain would prevent the invasion of the SU .
Without Britain and France ( = both countries neutral and undefeated,and stronger in June 1941 than in September 1939 ) ,Germany would be to weak to attack the SU .
A defeated and occupied Britain would tie 30+ divisions,which would result in a weaker Ostheer .
A neutral Britain and France would tie the double ( 70+ divisions ) ,thus would exclude an attack on the SU .
A neutral Britain and France is a potentially hostile Britain and France .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9434
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 27 Apr 2019 08:58

Globalization41 wrote:
26 Apr 2019 22:33
… With 2019 hindsight, it appears that the only way to have defeated Britain would have been with more U-boats or a cross-Channel invasion.

Globalization41.
This is not correct :
a Sealion was impossible
b More U-boats does not mean more sinkings,more sinkings does not mean less supplies and less supplies does not mean starvation .
Besides,more U-boats increase the risk of a DoW by the USA .
The possibility for Dönitz to defeat Britain was on the level of Sealion to defeat Britain .
The only way to force Britain to give up was if the USA openly declared that a they would remain neutral and b that they would stop their exports to Britain ,something which was on the level of a successful Sealion/U-boat war .Thus : never .

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1048
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Globalization41 » 27 Apr 2019 18:04

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, Hitler proclaimed the invasion was necessary to secure the Eastern Front from interfering with the eventual military defeat of Britain. … It's probable Hitler believed or suspected the defeat and occupation of the British Isles would make the exploitation of the Ukraine impossible. Stalin's Red Army was under new management and becoming more menacing. Hitler was in a hurry. A neutral France and Britain would most likely not have deterred Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler was looking for pretexts. Stalin underestimated the danger. He feared the British more than Hitler. Stalin allowed German officials to tour tank plants, deterrence through strength. Hitler's answer and pretext: the U.S.S.R. must be defeated sooner instead of later. Churchill was put on hold. … Even with the British defeated, Churchill would have moved to Canada and continued the war. It didn't really dawn on Churchill until almost June 1941 that Hitler would actually invade Russia, but Churchill did make it known that Stalin should consider Hitler a danger instead of a friendly fellow dictator. … F.D.R. wanted in the war, but his hands were tied by Congress. … More U-boats instead of battleships would have increased the probabilities of Great Britain exiting the European War. … The German Operation Sealion contingency plan to invade England could have delayed the Soviet invasion. Hitler might have needed too many divisions for Britain. However, the Balkans blitz including the air and seaborne invasion of Crete with heavy losses did not significantly affect the German concentrations along the Nazi-Soviet demarcation line prior to Hitler's invasion.

Globalization41.

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by gracie4241 » 18 Jul 2019 19:37

# 93 The Fuehrer directive to reallocate production from the Army,Directive 32a, toward Air Force and naval programs was signed on July 14, 1941, which by my calendar was 3 weeks plus one Day AFTER Barbarossa.My knowledge of Third Reich history is vastly superior to yours, and I know this having read a number of your fantasy comments. As O'Brien exhaustively shows in "How the War was Won" this directive, most EMPHATICALLY did include aircraft which in summer 1941 was running at 11,000 per annum and ultimately hit 55,000 per annum in 1944(less 16,000 destroyed in Allied air attacks directly).Total german armament programs for ALL Army equipment(tanks, guns,mortars etc) never surpassed 20%;, an additional 10% was within Army control, but 'i've exempted them as that included the Atlantic Wall, and V-2 programs having ZERO to do with the Russian campaign.The largest single component was ALWAYS aircraft.Money quote:" If it is true that the Second World War was ultimately decided on the battlefields of eastern Europe, by the clash of German and soviet tank armies, then the question arises why the share of firepower and mobility of land forces WAS SO CONSPICUOUSLY SMALL IN GERMANY(my emphasis)' Germany and the Second World War" quote in O'Brien supra p.17.On this site the opinion is widespread that german industry was focused on weapons to fight the Russian War, when NOTHING could be further from the truth .It wasn't; 70% was directed toward air and naval related progrms

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2695
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by Takao » 19 Jul 2019 01:47

gracie4241 wrote:
18 Jul 2019 19:37
# 93 The Fuehrer directive to reallocate production from the Army,Directive 32a, toward Air Force and naval programs was signed on July 14, 1941, which by my calendar was 3 weeks plus one Day AFTER Barbarossa.My knowledge of Third Reich history is vastly superior to yours, and I know this having read a number of your fantasy comments. As O'Brien exhaustively shows in "How the War was Won" this directive, most EMPHATICALLY did include aircraft which in summer 1941 was running at 11,000 per annum and ultimately hit 55,000 per annum in 1944(less 16,000 destroyed in Allied air attacks directly).Total german armament programs for ALL Army equipment(tanks, guns,mortars etc) never surpassed 20%;, an additional 10% was within Army control, but 'i've exempted them as that included the Atlantic Wall, and V-2 programs having ZERO to do with the Russian campaign.The largest single component was ALWAYS aircraft.Money quote:" If it is true that the Second World War was ultimately decided on the battlefields of eastern Europe, by the clash of German and soviet tank armies, then the question arises why the share of firepower and mobility of land forces WAS SO CONSPICUOUSLY SMALL IN GERMANY(my emphasis)' Germany and the Second World War" quote in O'Brien supra p.17.On this site the opinion is widespread that german industry was focused on weapons to fight the Russian War, when NOTHING could be further from the truth .It wasn't; 70% was directed toward air and naval related progrms
Actually, your both wrong...
You said
I can assure you that if the war in Russia was won in 1941, tank,artillery, truck production could and would have been sharply lowered and U Boat and aircraft production significantly increased; in fact that was the plan and expectation
However 32a states
(b) Army:
The extension of arms and equipment and the production of new weapons, munitions, and equipment will be related, with immediate effect, to the smaller forces which are contemplated for the future. Where orders have been placed for more than six months ahead all contracts beyond that period will be cancelled. Current deliveries will only continue if their immediate cancellation would be uneconomic.

The following are exceptions to these limitations:

The tank programme for the motorised forces (which are to be considerably reinforced) including the provision of special weapons and tanks of the heaviest type.


The new programme for heavy anti-tank guns, including their tractors and ammunition.

The programme for additional equipment for expeditionary forces, which will include four further armoured divisions for employment in the tropics, drawn from the overall strength of the armoured forces.

Preparations for the manufacture of equipment unrelated to these programmes will be halted.

The Army's programme for anti-aircraft guns is to be co-ordinated with that of the Air Force, and represents a single unified scheme from the manufacturing point of view. All available plant will be fully employed in order to achieve the delivery targets which I have laid down.
Thus, tank and truck production are not going to be "sharply decreased", but "considerably reinforced."

g6337772
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 28 Jul 2019 16:25
Location: europe

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by g6337772 » 31 Jul 2019 13:16

"Sharply reinforced" meant going from 4% of german armament production to 4.7% .Until 1943 german production for ALL afv( inc armoured cars, APC) never exceeded the 4.7%.The german naval program, after 1940 largely U-Boats, ran between 10-11%. The german Army never received more than 20% of output for all its weapons and equipment.O'brien, "How the War was Won';Ger.many and the Second World War", Vol 5/11, USSBS.Some people here have the opinion that Germany strained every muscle to the max for the russian war, but as the above sources make clear that was NOT TRUE.Also, wide variations in some categories occurred(eg ammunition, the drop in 44 in UBoat production because of stopping old submarine construction to 6%, etc).Germany COULD and DID switch labor and materials to and between programs(heck, see the V-1 and 2 program surge after mid 43)

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9434
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Panzers instead of U-boats

Post by ljadw » 31 Jul 2019 19:14

Sharply reinforced does NOT mean going from 4 % to 4.7% . It means an increase of production ,increase meaning from 3,623 tanks in 1941 to 18,956 tanks in 1944 .
% of armament production is meaningless .

The claim of O'Brien is questionable.

Return to “Economy”