The Germans increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940

[ljadw]

I see (as I expected ) that everybody is still focusing on something irrelevant = the production of additional tanks and is neglecting the simple facts that ,without crew, tanks are useless, that tanks need fuel, spare parts,ammunition, mechanics, that these need trucks to be transported, that these trucks need additional railway and road space,that tanks need protection by infantry and artillery,and that additional infantry and artillery need also additional supplies and that their additional supplies need additional road and railway space .
I see also (as I expected ) that people are still hypnotized by tanks,and still think that if the Germans had more tanks, they would have more victories .
Good work from the tank lobby .

[Richard Anderson]

i cut and paste from...

This basically shows a side by side monthly comparison of a chassis type. Basically, The M3 37mm/75mm version, M4 75MM, m7 105MM versions, and the M10 TD.

I will let people draw their own conclusions

What conclusions can you draw from that regarding the production of DTA?

The OPM figure for July 1941 include the 7 Medium Tanks M3 from DTA, 2 from Baldwin, and 17 from ALCO. Oddly though, the OPM table does not include the ten tanks produced in June 1941, 8 from ALCO and 2 from Baldwin,

[edit] BTW, I forgot to mention the OPM acceptance figures actually miss the 10 completed in June and undercount the total of the M3-series produced. They also may have missed the three pilots and some of the production pilots, partly I believe because of confusion with the British contract conversion to Lend-Lease. It is also unclear if the pilots and production pilots were included in the totals, but then that was typical of American practice.

M3 Pilot Serial #1 - 13 March 1941
DTA Production Pilot Serial #2 and #3 - c. 31 March, 11 April, and c. 14 April (they took them apart and put them back together again a few times)
ALCO and Baldwin Production Pilots #6? and #5 - c. 30 April
Pressed Steel (#7?) and Pullman Standard (#4) Production Pilots (for British contract as Grants) - 15 and 25 July[/edit]

[Yoozername]

I see (as I expected ) that everybody is still focusing on something irrelevant = the production of additional tanks and is neglecting the simple facts that ,without crew, tanks are useless, that tanks need fuel, spare parts,ammunition, mechanics, that these need trucks to be transported, that these trucks need additional railway and road space,that tanks need protection by infantry and artillery,and that additional infantry and artillery need also additional supplies and that their additional supplies need additional road and railway space .
I see also (as I expected ) that people are still hypnotized by tanks,and still think that if the Germans had more tanks, they would have more victories .
Good work from the tank lobby .

i agree, with the other guy, that is, not sure what you are arguing? Have you read through the whole thread? I don't blame people for not reading through it. It really could have been chopped up into a new thread(s) at some points. Maybe even taken those out of the 'what if?' section and put those parts in another category?

[ljadw]

1 The Germans DID increase Panzer production in the Summer of 1940
2 Was a greater increase possible ?
3 Were more tanks in the ATL needed ?
4 Would more tanks in the ATL have helped the Germans ?
5 Focusing only on the number of tanks is ignoring/neglecting that PzD were COMBINED Arms units,and that PzD did not operate in a void .
6 It is also ignoring that PzD could have too many tanks, as did the Soviet tank divisions
7 It is also ignoring that more tanks need more crew .Has anyone been thinking on the time that was needed to train a tank crew, to train a Pz Regiment ?

[Aida1]

The number of tanks was limited for the reasons we know : production, but not only production :more tanks would need more trucks to supply them , more motorized infantry and artillery to protect them ,and Germany had not the means for more tanks,motorized artillery and infantry .

You clearly do not have a clue. More tanks in a Pz Div does not require more infantry and artillery as there is already enough of these assets within the existing pz Div. German pz div became too light on tanks with more pz Div. And one can certainly make different decisions concerning the allocation of resources to allow the production of more tanks. You are always in denial of any possibility of anything being done differently.

[ljadw]

The PzD of 1940 had less tanks than those of 1939 and those of 1941 had less tanks than those of 1940, but the PzD of 1941 did not worse than those of 1940 and those of 1940 not worse than those of 1939 .
The Ostheer attacked with some 3500 tanks in 17 PzD . If there were 7000 tanks, there would have to be 34 PzD or 17 PzD with a manpower strength of 30000 men ,which was out of the question :
More tanks does not mean more crew
More tanks need more infantry and artillery as protection
More tanks need more mechanics, more ammunition, more fuel, more spare parts, and these need more railway and more road space .
34 PzD need more Mot.Inf.
All these things did not exist and were not available .
Besides, more PzD do not mean more successes: the Germans could have won with less tanks and would have lost with more tanks .
Guderian said that the infantry was too slow ,with more PzD there would be less ID and they would also be too slow .

[Aida1]

The PzD of 1940 had less tanks than those of 1939 and those of 1941 had less tanks than those of 1940, but the PzD of 1941 did not worse than those of 1940 and those of 1940 not worse than those of 1939 .
The Ostheer attacked with some 3500 tanks in 17 PzD . If there were 7000 tanks, there would have to be 34 PzD or 17 PzD with a manpower strength of 30000 men ,which was out of the question :
More tanks does not mean more crew
More tanks need more infantry and artillery as protection
More tanks need more mechanics, more ammunition, more fuel, more spare parts, and these need more railway and more road space .
34 PzD need more Mot.Inf.
All these things did not exist and were not available .
Besides, more PzD do not mean more successes: the Germans could have won with less tanks and would have lost with more tanks .
Guderian said that the infantry was too slow ,with more PzD there would be less ID and they would also be too slow .

Completely wrong. More tanks means that each Pz Div will have more tanks. The extra manpower needed for crews is insignificant in the big picture. More mot Div would not be needed. You refuse to see that Pz Div need to be tank heavy, otherwise they resemble more a mot Div.

[ljadw]

The allied armoured divisions of 1943 and later had less tanks than the German PzD of 1940 but did not worse than these divisions .
Tanks are only ONE component of an armoured divisions : more tanks did not increase the operational strength of an armoured divisions . This is proved by the fate of the Soviet tank divisions which had too many tanks .

[Aida1]

The allied armoured divisions of 1943 and later had less tanks than the German PzD of 1940 but did not worse than these divisions .
Tanks are only ONE component of an armoured divisions : more tanks did not increase the operational strength of an armoured divisions . This is proved by the fate of the Soviet tank divisions which had too many tanks .

complete nonsense. Obviously the striking power of an armoured division with considerably more tanks is higher as that is the main asset of a tank division. A tank division in the real sense of the word is tank heavy.

[ljadw]

The main asset of a tank division is not the number of tanks .
Besides, the more tanks such a division has, the less will be operational .

[Terry Duncan]

Besides, the more tanks such a division has, the less will be operational .

By that reasoning, the more men in an army at any given time will mean that there are more men sick at any one time also.

[ljadw]

The Soviet tank divisions had too many tanks and a lot of them collapsed during their advance to the border in June/July 1941,BEFORE they had even seen a German .
It is much easier to supply a tank division of 200 tanks than a tank division of 400 tanks .How many of these 400 tanks will still be operational after an advance of one day ?
British armoured forces operated mainly as Brigades of 5000 men ,because armoured divisions of 15000 men were too big to handle .
On the German side Guderian wanted to go back to the failed prewar system of PzD with 400 tanks, although the war had proved them inept .
And it is obvious than in an army of 500000 men,there will be more sick than in an army of 100000 men

[Aida1]

The main asset of a tank division is not the number of tanks .
Besides, the more tanks such a division has, the less will be operational .

What a load of rubbish. Laughable. So the main asset of a tank division is not tanks.
And it is true that the number of operational tanks dimishes rapidly so a division with not much tanks to begin with will end up with almost none very quickly.

[Aida1]

The Soviet tank divisions had too many tanks and a lot of them collapsed during their advance to the border in June/July 1941,BEFORE they had even seen a German .
It is much easier to supply a tank division of 200 tanks than a tank division of 400 tanks .How many of these 400 tanks will still be operational after an advance of one day ?
British armoured forces operated mainly as Brigades of 5000 men ,because armoured divisions of 15000 men were too big to handle .
On the German side Guderian wanted to go back to the failed prewar system of PzD with 400 tanks, although the war had proved them inept .
And it is obvious than in an army of 500000 men,there will be more sick than in an army of 100000 men

You make no sense at all. Having a lower number of divisions with more tanks per divisions will be a better use of resources to repair and supply.A Pz Div light on tanks will quickly become a division with a very low number of tanks. A proper Pz Div heavy in tanks will still have a lot.
You clearly ignore that independent tank brigades did not work out including when the germans tried it. A tank division operatess in battlegroups so there is no problem in it being handled .

[Tom from Cornwall]

Having a lower number of divisions with more tanks per divisions will be a better use of resources to repair and supply.

The correct balance between armour, infantry, artillery, engineers, supply troops, medical troops, etc was a subject that seemed to be constantly under review during the war. UK and US, for example, decreased number of tank units and, certainly in case of UK, increased number of infantry and artillery units mid-war.

As war went on, and anti-tank defences (both guns, hand-held infantry weapons and mines) strengthened it seems to have been decided by all armies that some formations were too "tank heavy". What the right balance should have been is the key question and not one I'm qualified to answer. I'll leave that to others much more knowledgeable than me.

Regards

Tom