Well, as TMP himself has stated, his point is not that production would be equal to 1943, rather that similar measures would lead to a proportional increase in production.Richard Anderson wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 08:36Agreed. You just need the workforce, plant, funding, and raw materials available in 1943 moved to 1940-1.
Thank you for that data.Richard Anderson wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 08:36The 150 Alkett SdKfz 132 were produced in April and May of 1942. Ursus and Famo produced the 531 SdKfz 131 from July 1942-June 1943. BMM produced all the others.
Well, yes, but the production of vehicles with a Panzer III chassis was concentrated at just 2 plants in 1943, whereas in 1942 it was spread across most producers. Therefore the extra output of StuG/StuH came from increased production at Alkett and MIAG, rather than from an overall industry switch from tank to assault gun production based on the Panzer III chassis.Richard Anderson wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 08:36Except the weight difference between the Panzer III and StuG/StuH were negligible and I was commenting on your weight counts.
Here's the increase in tonnage by vehicle type for Q2/Q1:
1. Panther : 14,336
2. StuG and StuH : 9,441
3. Ferdinand : 5,850
4. Panzer IV : 4,975
5. Tiger : 2,964
6. Sturmpanzer : 1,692
7. Nashorn : 1,608
Marder tonnage went down by 761 and Panzer III by 2,898 metric tons.
Yes. In TMP's ATL the Germans would presumably increase Panzer III production, rather than StuG.Richard Anderson wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 08:36Sure. And the monthly Panzer production increased from an average of 350 per month on 1942 to 491 per month in 1943. StuG production went from 67 to 270, which was the main numerical gain. However, given that the StuG was a primarily defensive weapon, albeit also an infantry support weapon, its increase would not do much to creating the additional Panzers required.
There was no jump in Panzer IV production. There was definitely a jump in the overall production of AFVs, mainly via Panther and assault/SP gun production.Richard Anderson wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 08:36Indeed, I agree, there was no sudden jump to production in 2Q-1943. Rather, there is the illusion of a sudden jump created by the switch in armament...which had the same retarding effect on Panzer III production in 1940-1941.
It doesn't, though. What distorts the picture is a vehicle count, given that producing different vehicles requires varying amounts of raw materials and man-hours.Richard Anderson wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 08:36And here I thought you just agreed that it is better to look at output numbers rather than tonnage? Tonnage distorts the effect caused by the adoption of the Panther.
I don't see how switching to a new, heavier type of tank leads to a vast increase in factory tonnage output at the very beginning of the production run.
One way to settle the debate would be to look at Panzer III production at D-B/Henschel/MAN/MNH in Q4/1942 and compare it to Panther production in Q2/1943, and then look at the number of man-hours it took to produce a Panther at the beginning compared to a Panzer III at the end of their respective production runs.
In the case of MAN, I have some data starting in the second half of 1943:
1943/3: 9,601 man-hours per Panther
1943/4: 5,811
1944/1: 4,886
1944/2: 4,433
1944/3: 3,803
Multiplied by the number of Panthers produced, it shows a steady volume of ~1.6 million man-hours per quarter for the period. This is consistent with the fact that the Germans didn't increase the size of the labor force in the AFV factories in 1944.
We could do the same exercise for raw materials.
To reiterate, one can't just compare total Panzer III and Panther output, because these vehicles don't require the same inputs, whether in terms of man-hours or raw materials.