Re: American blitzkrieg

Ray O'Hara wrote:
"Dan" <dnadan56@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ZJGgn.13557$Dv7.8523@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ray O'Hara wrote:
"Keith Willshaw" <keithnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Z5dgn.65989$3E5.52784@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"PaPa Peng" <papapeng3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:60a433e5-11c7-4842-95f0-da36dbd24565@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 20, 4:04 am, "Keith Willshaw"
<keithnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


The Third Reich was defeated by overwhelming firepower.

Compare and contrast war production figures

System Allies Axis Ratio
Tanks and SP guns 227,235 52,345 4.3
Artillery 914,682 180,141 5.1
Mortars 657,318 100,000+ 6.6
Machineguns 4,744,484 1,058,863 4.5
Military trucks 3,060,354 594,859 5.1

Fighter aircraft 212,459 90,684 2.3
Attack aircraft 37,549 12,539 3.0
Bomber aircraft 153,615 35,415 4.3
Recon aircraft 7,885 13,033 (1.6)
Transport aircraft 43,045 5,657 7.6

Keith
I have added a crude ratio figure by dividing the Allied/German
figures. I haven't figured out how I will use them in an argument
yet.
amsgul
Allied production. Does this include Russian production?
Yes

In WWII the Germans lost more than 80 per cent of their men and war
materiel in the Eastern Front.
True of tanks and artillery , not so for aircraft

We have casualty figures (including
civilians) like Russia 30 million, Germany 10 million.

Indeed , from the first the Nazis waged a genocidal war in the east.

WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29
As the Soviet Union's manpower reserves ran low from 1943 onwards, the
great Soviet offensives had to depend more on equipment and less on
the expenditure of lives. The increases in production of war materiel
were achieved at the expense of civilian living standards — the most
thorough application of the principle of total war — and with the help
of Lend-Lease supplies from the United Kingdom and the United States.
The Germans, on the other hand, could rely on a large slave workforce
from the conquered countries and Soviet POWs.

Germany's raw material production was higher than the Soviets' and her
labour force was far greater, but the Soviets were more efficient at
using what resources they had and chose to build low-cost, low-
maintenance vehicles whilst the Germans built high-cost, high-
maintenance vehicles.

Germany chose to build very expensive and very complicated vehicles
and even though Germany produced many times more raw materials she
could not compete with the Soviets on the quantity of military
production (in 1943, the Soviet Union manufactured 24,089 tanks to
Germany's 19,800). The Soviets incrementally upgraded existing
designs, and simplified and refined manufacturing processes to
increase production. Meanwhile, German industry was forced to engineer
more advanced but complex designs such as the Panther tank, the King
Tiger or the Elefant.

It was only 'forced' in the sense that those were the contracts awarded.
In the USSR, USA and UK a deliberate policy was decided on that
production in quantity of 'adequate' designs such as the Sherman, T-34
and Churchill would take precedence on advanced tanks such as
the IS-3, M-26 Pershing and Centurion.

Keith



I'd say the T-34 was an advaned design. it was it's superiority that drove the Germans to build the Tiger and Panthers.
Tiger is an upgunned/uparmored PzKwIV. The biggest change to the profile is the interleaved road wheel, needed to support the added weight.

the Ruskis deserve credit for having the best tanks.
T34: innovative design (shares many design features with the earlier Christie design BT series), easily manufactured, not wonderful for the tankers, but sure as hell a LOT of them! But, they didn't come with radios for a year or two, and effective tank doctrine was late to develop.

The US could have just as easily tooled up for the Pershing as for the Sherman.
the ordnance board liked the HE round the 75 used and they had the idea that "tanks fight infantry, tank destroyers fight tanks"
Among other factors. The M4 was a better T34, slightly superior to the PzKwIV once upgunned and "wetted" down.

Dan

no. we had a shitload of Shermans that was its superiority.
and we had the best spare parts and repair abilities.. so we had more and kept them in service better.
and the T34 could be upgunned to the 85. the Sherman and the MKIV were maxed out with the 76.2 and 75 respectively.

The Russian 85mm had armor penetration approximately equal to the 76.2US/75Ger weapons. It had better anti-personnel characteristics with its larger size (same reason the 122mm was chosen over the superior vs. armor 100mm gun).

M4 armor was superior to both T34/PzKwIV from the start. They were returned to service after loss much faster and more often than German or Russian vehicles. Logistic train was good, considering the distances involved. M4 was used often as artillery, not seen in any other country. Tracks were a bit narrow, but could be fitted with grousers for additional support. Fire problem (Tommy Cooker/Ronson label) lowered with wet armor storage. Eventually, they were fitted with external communication handsets (first as a field mod, later by design) so accompanying infantry could help direct fire and maneuver.

Altogether a decent design, if a bit light for the late war where it saw service. The German main tank was STILL the PzKwIV at war's end, despite years of Tiger/Panther/TigerII production (each with its own proclivities toward failure).

Note that the Pershing influenced future design far more than any wartime tank... The super Pershing was the functional equivalent of the King Tiger, though only one actually saw action. The JSII tanks were known as Cat Killers for their ability to deal with Panthers/Tigers face to face, though they only carried about 25% AP/HVAP shells, the remainder being HE to handle the infantry, a much bigger overall threat to operations in the theater.

But, in the end, it WAS numbers (not beauty) the killed the beast...

Dan
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: American blitzkrieg
    ... Compare and contrast war production figures ... True of tanks and artillery, ... As the Soviet Union's manpower reserves ran low from 1943 onwards, ... I'd say the T-34 was an advaned design. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Hitlers opinion of Pearl Harbor attack?
    ... AIUI, British tank production methods ... Cruiser Tanks, which were essentially "Medium Tanks on the Cheap". ... close to immediate as you can get in the normal tank design iteration) ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: American blitzkrieg
    ... Compare and contrast war production figures ... True of tanks and artillery, ... As the Soviet Union's manpower reserves ran low from 1943 onwards, ... Germany chose to build very expensive and very complicated vehicles ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: American blitzkrieg
    ... Compare and contrast war production figures ... True of tanks and artillery, ... As the Soviet Union's manpower reserves ran low from 1943 onwards, ... Germany chose to build very expensive and very complicated vehicles ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Going OT - (Was: Re: 7012-397 on eBay)
    ... It was a plane design some 20 ... aircraft designs, ... production complexes etc. There's no doubting that, during wartime, ... within Germany in about a week's time. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware)