The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 24 Dec 2020 19:09

I will to write different for to try 2.attempt.

Data on website on pziii 5cm "ACCEPTANCES"

until january 1941.year = 0
january 1941.year = 88
february 1941.year = 108
march 1941.year = 92
april 1941.year = 124
may 1941.year = 143

= total "ACCEPTANCES" until 31 may 1941.year = 555

On website was write
total number of tanks availble to Germany on 1 June 1941:
pziii 5cm = 1090


How can for to be 1.090 tanks availble to Germany on 1 June 1941 when was acceptances 555 until 31 may 1941.year ?

I was analyze datas on pziii 3.7cm and was not be possible for to convert 535 pziii 3.7cm on pziii 5cm.

Datas on acceptances or datas on availble must have error.

Can you to help expain what datas was write error ?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by Yoozername » 24 Dec 2020 20:26

https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stat ... onthly.htm

This link is using these sources:

Production of the Pz.Kpfw.III Series
(Sd.Kfz.141 – Ausf A to Ausf H – 3.7 cm KwK)
(Sd.Kfz.141/1 – Ausf J, L and M – 5 cm KwK)
(Sd.Kfz.141/2 – Ausf N– 7.5 cm KwK)
(Sd.Kfz.141/3 – Pz.Kpfw. III (Fl)– (Flamethrower)
Resources:
Panzer-Tracts No.3-2: Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf.E, F, G, und H development and production from 1938 to 1941 by Jentz/Doyle
Panzer-Tracts No.3-3: Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. J, L, M, und N by Jentz/Doyle
Panzer III & It's Variants by Walter J. Spielberger


But later G and H models had 5,0 cm L42, so I have some doubts that he collated the information correctly.

This Panzerworld data is correct. that is, fleet size and committed tanks to Russia.
Fleet size
Pz Kpfw III (3,7) 350 (Plus 68 in maintenance)
Pz Kpfw III (5) 1090

Barbarossa
PIII (3,7) 265
PIII (5,0) 707

Production
Production numbers for the Panzerkampfwagen III.
Version Production
Ausf. A 10
Ausf. B 15
Ausf. C 15
Ausf. D 30
Ausf. E 96
Ausf. F 435
Ausf. G 600
Ausf. H 286
Ausf. J 1602
Ausf. L 1470
Ausf. M 517
Ausf. N 614
Total 5690

This may be a better source, but it combines L42 and L60.

Image

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 28 Dec 2020 13:26

Yoozername wrote:
24 Dec 2020 20:26
https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stat ... onthly.htm

This link is using these sources:

Production of the Pz.Kpfw.III Series
(Sd.Kfz.141 – Ausf A to Ausf H – 3.7 cm KwK)
(Sd.Kfz.141/1 – Ausf J, L and M – 5 cm KwK)
(Sd.Kfz.141/2 – Ausf N– 7.5 cm KwK)
(Sd.Kfz.141/3 – Pz.Kpfw. III (Fl)– (Flamethrower)
Resources:
Panzer-Tracts No.3-2: Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf.E, F, G, und H development and production from 1938 to 1941 by Jentz/Doyle
Panzer-Tracts No.3-3: Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf. J, L, M, und N by Jentz/Doyle
Panzer III & It's Variants by Walter J. Spielberger


But later G and H models had 5,0 cm L42, so I have some doubts that he collated the information correctly.

This Panzerworld data is correct. that is, fleet size and committed tanks to Russia.
Fleet size
Pz Kpfw III (3,7) 350 (Plus 68 in maintenance)
Pz Kpfw III (5) 1090

Barbarossa
PIII (3,7) 265
PIII (5,0) 707

Production
Production numbers for the Panzerkampfwagen III.
Version Production
Ausf. A 10
Ausf. B 15
Ausf. C 15
Ausf. D 30
Ausf. E 96
Ausf. F 435
Ausf. G 600
Ausf. H 286
Ausf. J 1602
Ausf. L 1470
Ausf. M 517
Ausf. N 614
Total 5690

This may be a better source, but it combines L42 and L60.

Image
Thanks you

On new datas you was give numbers can to make sense.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Dec 2020 13:33

Yoozername wrote:Only about a fifth of the Panzers sent to Russia had the 5,0 cm gun. Only about 65% of the available fleet of 5,0 cm armed Panzer III were sent to Russia. Around a thousand panzers had 3,7 cm guns. Almost another thousand had 20 mm or less.
This line of discussion is irrelevant and besides the point of the ATL, which is to have more German panzers. That many OTL German panzers were weakly gunned obviously didn't prevent OTL Barbarossa from smashing the Red Army and removing 1/3 of Soviet warmaking capability.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6394
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by Richard Anderson » 28 Dec 2020 17:18

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Dec 2020 13:33
This line of discussion is irrelevant and besides the point of the ATL, which is to have more German panzers. That many OTL German panzers were weakly gunned obviously didn't prevent OTL Barbarossa from smashing the Red Army and removing 1/3 of Soviet warmaking capability.
Isn't it relevant though to ways to actually have more German Panzers? It eliminates the whole bottleneck of the 5cm gun kerfuffle if they just stick with the 3.7cm. Since weakly gunned tanks didn't have any effect the simplest way to get that additional removal of Soviet warmaking capability would be to continue production of the 3.7cm-armed tanks. No problem, right?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Dec 2020 20:33

Richard Anderson wrote:Isn't it relevant though to ways to actually have more German Panzers?
It'd be similarly relevant for you to propose that Germany put tin plating on horses and call them panzers. More panzers after all...

Basically you're bored and finding ways to create arguments against which you'd like to argue.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by Yoozername » 29 Dec 2020 00:14

Given the meandering nature of this thread, I don't think it is up to TMP to determine what is relevant.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6394
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by Richard Anderson » 29 Dec 2020 01:12

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Dec 2020 20:33
It'd be similarly relevant for you to propose that Germany put tin plating on horses and call them panzers. More panzers after all...

Basically you're bored and finding ways to create arguments against which you'd like to argue.
And you're just being churlish as well as silly, since I never said or implied anything of the sort.

No, not at all. You brought up the documentation on the shortfalls in 5cm KwK production earlier after all. If it affected the total output of tanks, then it was a bottleneck to getting numbers of tanks produced. I would also suspect the changeovers alone were disruptive to output. We know, from the example of MIAG, that it produced its first two Panzer III (3.7cm) in September 1939 and completed 58 more through the end of June 1940. Perhaps significantly, they turned out 12 in May (the peak of the 3.7cm for them), but then only 6 in June. In July it turned to 5cm L42 production, managing to increase to 14 of them and completed another 44 of those by the end of October. They then changed yet again, to producing the Panzer III with 5cm L60 KwK, 12 In November 1940, and then 108 more through the end of May 1940. Again, tank production dropped from 14 in October, to 12 in November, 12 in December, then only 6 in January 1941, before recovering to 20 in February.

Could sticking with the 3.7cm armament resulted in increased output? I suspect so, after all the 5cm KwK L42 and L60 were both new guns. Going for a different tube than the PaK initially was probably also disruptive to production. That wouldn't have helped with the lack of power in the 3.7cm of course.

However, it is also possible if HWA hadn't dicked around with the L42 in the first place that the transition to the L60 would have been smoother too, possibly 46+ more tanks just from smoothing out that production glitch.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by Yoozername » 29 Dec 2020 02:30

I believe the Panzer III 3,7 cm versions did suffer the worst casualties in the first 2 months. Something like 3X the % TWO compared to Panzer III 5,0 cm.

The actual distribution varied as far as who got what. Basically there were 38 (t) based PD (they had Panzer II and IVs also), Mixed Panzer III PD. These varied as far as the ratio. And a couple of PD with just 5,0 cm. Clearly, having 4 tanks in a division, and having them using unique ammunition, is not great logistics.

An alternative to 3,7 or 5,0 cm would be 7,5 cm L24. That is, more StuGs. Many PD had just 20 panzer IV. Others had 30 0r 30+. Only 73% of Panzer IV in stock were committed to Barbarossa.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by David Thompson » 17 Jan 2021 05:18

A post from Avalancheon, containing insulting personal comments about another forum member, was removed pursuant to the forum rules.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6394
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by Richard Anderson » 18 Jan 2021 02:16

Richard Anderson wrote:
23 Dec 2020 16:03
Avalancheon wrote:
23 Dec 2020 15:21
Thats not necessary. As I explained in an earlier post, a minor increase in production could yield an extra 330 Panzer III tanks built from September 1940 to May 1941. The factories only needed to produce 140 Panzer IIIs per month from September 1940 onward to hit that goal. That production target is possible to achieve with a POD in July 1940.
Given that historical production over that period averaged 103.3 per month that means 37 more tanks assembled, an increase of 35.8% per month. That also means an increase of 37 more engines, 37 more transmissions, and 37 more 5cm guns per month, the latter two being major bottlenecks. Reaching that point historically took until April 1942, so you want a magic wand that makes 22 months disappear.
A significant number of the older model Panzer IIIs were re-armed with 50mm guns. Look at the Ausf F, for instance. The Germans built 435 of these. Over 300 were built with the 37mm gun, while the rest (over 100) were built with the 50mm gun. Between 1940 and 1942, many of the Ausf Fs were re-armed with 50mm guns. Its the same story with the Ausf E.
I think you missed the point. Yes, "older model Panzer IIIs were re-armed with 50mm guns". The first "significant number" was ONE in January 1941, the same month FIVE were rebuilt with 3.7cm guns. So 63% of the rebuilds during the period were with 3.7cm guns. My point was that from June 1940 through March 1941, 68 Panzer III were rebuilt with 3.7cm guns, while from January through March 1941 40 were rebuilt with 5cm guns. Gee, I wonder why?
And as for the prospect of re-arming all of the older model Panzer IIIs in time for the invasion of Russia. The feasibility of this varies depending on whether you have a 1939 or a 1940 POD. A 1939 POD results in a fleet with large numbers of 37mm armed Panzer IIIs, while a 1940 POD results in a fleet with large numbers of 50mm armed Panzer IIIs. Take a guess at which scenario is preferable.
No, the feasibility of re-arming all of the older model Panzer III in time for the invasion of Russia depended on the availability of 5cm guns. Just declaring a "POD results in..." does not mean that the bottlenecks restricting production of 5cm guns disappears. Nor does changing decisions based upon hindsight to eliminate such bottlenecks actually work in reality. Deciding which scenario is preferable is the epitome of hindsight bias.
Since there seems to be some confusion on this issue in the post that was deleted, let me clarify.

The Germans began building new Panzer III with 5cm guns (L42) in July 1940 with 17 completed.

The question was regarding "rebuilding" "old" Panzer III with 5cm guns. That began in January 1941 with one completed.

They are two different Panzer III states of being.

All Panzer III with 5cm guns, the early L42 or later L60, could only be completed if guns were available. That was a problem in mid 1940 as TMP and others demonstrated earlier; only a fraction of the guns required were being manufactured. That is one bottleneck that we can judge was not entirely eliminated until at least c. March 1941 when the last 40 rebuilt Panzer III 3.7cm were finished as 3.7cm tanks rather than 5c, tanks.

All Panzer III, and indeed essentially all German tracked AFV, utilized transmissions produced by Zahnradfabrik in Friedrichshafen. They were classic "station" manufacturers, with artisans finishing assemblies assisted by journeymen and apprentices. It was not until 1944 that production of transmissions expanded to others like Hemel in Chemnitz. That is a second bottleneck also not dealt with until 1944.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by Yoozername » 18 Jan 2021 05:30

I guess i missed something.

In any case, reading through all this (ug), and looking at actual German motorization regarding Barbarossa... they not only
expanded the Panzer Divisions, they also expanded the motorized divisions. the Hail-Mary they tossed, and broken axles, and seized motors, etc., is another chapter that defeats these dreamers.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 18 Jan 2021 20:20

Richard Anderson wrote:All Panzer III, and indeed essentially all German tracked AFV, utilized transmissions produced by Zahnradfabrik in Friedrichshafen. They were classic "station" manufacturers, with artisans finishing assemblies assisted by journeymen and apprentices. It was not until 1944 that production of transmissions expanded to others like Hemel in Chemnitz. That is a second bottleneck also not dealt with until 1944.
Ah so that must be why Germany didn't increase panzer production until 1944? :roll:

The fundamental intellectual problem here is to use the word "bottleneck" in a literal sense. Unless all components are produced at identical rates there is always a bottleneck.

The fundamental rhetorical move is to assume that when Germany devotes more resources to panzers in general it forgets to spend more on guns and tracks.

It's a ridiculous assumption but allows one to further obfuscate discussion by pushing everything further back the supply chain, always into some morass where uncited details are thrown about and perhaps the reader will tire and give up.

The ultimate bottleneck is labor absent some geographic constraint (e.g. oil being across blockaded seas).
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3556
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by T. A. Gardner » 18 Jan 2021 22:29

At its simplest, there are two major bottlenecks to production, be it German, American, British, or anyone else. Those are the assembly of the item, and manufacture of the parts that go into it. Increase one and not the other, and you don't get more production. You get more parts or you get an assembly line that is idle part of the time for lack of parts.

There are various ways to improve this too. Not all were readily available to Germany.

For example, one can simplify the item being made. Fewer parts means quicker assembly.
Or, one can simplify the parts themselves. By changing production methods to reduce the time it takes to make a part you can make more parts in a given time.
You can increase capacity by adding shifts or by building more production space.
Reducing the time it takes to move parts to the factory is another.
Better quality control means less rework.

There are many ways to increase production. The German problem first and foremost was they retained the Meister system of skilled workers doing hand work at assembly stations. There was no real attempt to introduce an assembly line.

Also, the "ultimate bottleneck is labor absent" isn't true. By reducing the labor needed to do something accomplished by changing production methods or automating, labor shortages can be gotten around. I hold up that video I've used and posted of Chrysler manufacturing Bofors 40mm guns. Chrysler re-engineered all the drawings, then found ways to make the parts cheaper and faster than by handwork. They increased quality control to avoid rework and bad parts. By doing so, they decreased the labor hours per gun dramatically and increased output without increasing capacity.

That Germany was making several different models of tank by itself was a factor limiting production. If as Rich points out, there were just a few, or one, company producing transmissions for these vehicles that's a bottleneck in itself. Having to produce several different transmissions rather than one or two common ones creates a flow problem when there is limited capacity.

The biggest problem with German production was it was inefficient relying on craftsmen and handwork to assemble things. The reluctance to abandon that and move to assembly line production was a major bottleneck in increasing production in Germany.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 18 Jan 2021 23:08

T.A. Gardner wrote:Also, the "ultimate bottleneck is labor absent" isn't true. By reducing the labor needed to do something accomplished by changing production methods or automating, labor shortages can be gotten around.
In what mental universe is "a resource can be used more efficiently" the same as "a resource is functionally inexhaustible"?
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Return to “What if”