Bismark or 2500 Pz-IIIs?

[Paul Lakowski]

I've posted this on other boards so I'm interested in opinions here too. ....just a musing here. SInce the Bismark was launched in 1941 and weighted something like 55,000 tons.Would you have re-directed the steel used to manufacture this monster to another task? Would it have been better as the worlds scariest monster or would you rather have produced say ~ 2500 Pz-III H or Js for Barbarossa?

Yes the Bismark made a huge impact in naval history but this had a limited impact in continental warfare. Sending her to sea to choke the brits was a gamble that failed , at the end of the day it didn't really alter the out come of the war. On the other hand invading Russian was a hell of a gamble that many feel was a mistake and cost germany the war.

If you had to direct the strategic assets [production of steel and fuel huge precision guns etc ]...which would you rather have had....one Bismark or 2500 Pz-IIIj?

[Paul Lakowski]

update

In the first half of the war German tank production was on a loss replacement basis.After the war USSBS revealed that german vehicle production was run at 25% of capacity until mid war period and only reached 50% of maximum capacity in '44. What controlled production was cost , steel allocation and the will to do so. Cancelling the major surface fleet would have provided the money and steel to be diverted to tank production.

Man power would not be a problem since if worse came to worse existing PzJager battalions [towed 37mm ATGs] could be converted to tanks [with some training].
Likewize spare parts could be produced along side to deal with maintenance increase.The production of 'fuel oil' for the major combatants could be diverted to increased gasoline production .

I believe Germany would have been better served by recognizing the failure of surface fleets to compete against the RN in WW-II . Accept that they could never compete being so far behind and scrappe all major surface ships [ no BC or BS] and divert half the steel and production assets into more subs and the rest into production for the army.~ 12,300 SPWs and 3000 tanks. Interms of what was needed. Guderian called for 300-400 tanks per Pz Division [x 10] and some in the motorized division. This alone demanded a production of ~ 3500 Pz-III by the start of the French campaign...[not counting losses] so I believe such a production was needed.

[balthasar]

All the major countries used resources to build battleships. In hindsight, all seem to view it as a waste.

But having them when the other side does not is the whole point.

I think it's funny when I read that Pearl Harbor retreads were used 'only' for shore bombardment I wish I were there for that!

Nobody wants foreiners steaming up and hurling 16" shells at them unopposed.

But I agree, Germany should have built more subs and tanks and fewer surface ships - in hindsight of course.

[Nashorn]

i wud have gone with Stugs personally

u cud have built several thousand of them as opposed to the 2500 panzer 3s, and they were, in my opinion, far better tank killers, espiecially in Russia

[Isegrim]

1

If you had to direct the strategic assets [production of steel and fuel huge precision guns etc ]...which would you rather have had....one Bismark or 2500 Pz-IIIj?

I think it`s not the question of wheter a Bismarck or 2500 PzIIIs... Germany had enough raw amterials, like steel, since it was the world`s largest steel manufacturer right behind the USA, they produced more steel than the USSR and the British Empire combined... Germany`s output was only limited by the bottleneck of it`s production and assembly facilities, and the amount of workforce (if not counting the leader`s unwillignness to fully mobilize these reserves). Not the lack of raw materials.

Second, the production of a battleship cannot be converted to tank production... ships are made at naval yards that can`t produce anything but ships. You can`t build tanks there because there are no facilities, no equipment for that... you can`t build tiny 50mm guns on machines that were designed to handle over 100 ton naval guns of 15" claiber... you just can`t build 1000 small 12 liter petrol engines isntead of 12 large oil biolers.. you get the picture.

[Paul Lakowski]

Re: 1

Originally posted by Isegrim

Second, the production of a battleship cannot be converted to tank production... ships are made at naval yards that can`t produce anything but ships. You can`t build tanks there because there are no facilities, no equipment for that... you can`t build tiny 50mm guns on machines that were designed to handle over 100 ton naval guns of 15" claiber... you just can`t build 1000 small 12 liter petrol engines isntead of 12 large oil biolers.. you get the picture.

As I remarked on the other boards you don't convert BB construction facilities to tank production, you allocate money and steel 'production' that would have been spent on BB/BC towards tank/SPW production.

The Russians were faced with a similar choice and made the wize choice of choosing tanks over ships....this is one part of why they were able to mass produce so much in comparison.

German vehicle production facilities where not run at any where near full capacity through out the war. USSBS reports vehicle production was run at 25% factory floor capacity during the war rising to 50% by wars end...in some critical war industries they didn't even run night shifts!

Fuel was produced as bunker oil and stored at naval facilities and 'under used' through out the war, while the Heer was starving to death due to fuel shortages on the eastern front.
USSBS reports that german fuel production had the ability to switch hugh amounts of finished products based on what was needed at the front, so fuel production should have been transfered from bunker oil to gasoline.

Had there been a political will , they could have allocated the time money and resources to field a mechanized army instead of a horse drawn one!


The reason why it didn't was of the lack of strategic forsight the germans possesed....The allies did have the strategic forsight and they choose wizely and made the nessessary sacrifices, this is why they won the war and the germans lost.

[MiloMorai]

" Second, the production of a battleship cannot be converted to tank production... ships are made at naval yards that can`t produce anything but ships. You can`t build tanks there because there are no facilities, no equipment for that... you can`t build tiny 50mm guns on machines that were designed to handle over 100 ton naval guns of 15" claiber... you just can`t build 1000 small 12 liter petrol engines isntead of 12 large oil biolers.. you get the picture."

No true, naval shipyards are a heavy industry. There are many sub-assembly shops quite capable of making armoured vehicles in the shipyard. The smaller turrets were made 'inhouse', plating had to be cut, rolled, assembled. Tiny 50mm guns were not usually made in tank factories either. There are many small engines in a capital ship used to power pumps, compressors,....... Most engines were also not made in the tank factory but brought in from 'outside'.

[Nashorn]

MiloMorai does have an interesting point there!
tank "factories" as such consist of extensive ASSEMBLY area, parts, such as ball bearings as a prime example, vital for production of vehicles are produced in smalelr, specialised workshops by skilled craftsmen, then brought in to form the production process as needed

I DO BUSINESS STUDIES AT SCHOOL! lol




Nashorn

[Georgi Zhukov 2]

I would take 2500 pz-III then...but I would on the other side take both of them and use bismarck more strategic then send it out with only one heavy cruiser...

But for the whole V2 project you could buy 30,000 BF 109s... So I would use these resorces rather then those for Bismarck and Tirpitz

But I would take a little less pz-IV...then pz-III

[Matt L]

Hi Paul,

Okay, I'm assuming here that you posted the question for fun and not as a serious idea, correct? And for fun I'd say DEFINITELY the 2500 Pzkpfw IIIs. That's a helluva lot of armor! The Soviets proved that more is sometimes better! Besides, I agree with Nashorn that the Sturmgeschuetz was a better tank-killer so if given a choice of Pz III production facilities, I'd build StuG IIIs too.

[Paul Lakowski]

Hey another Vancouverite!!

I actually posted in a semi serious manner.I was reading a book about the RED ARMY that noted that Soviets economy was able to produce 3000 tanks for every million tons of steel manufactured compared to 600 tanks per million for Germans and 400-500 per million for Allies. The main explaination given was that the soviets didn't produce any warships....between 1942 and 1944 the germans produced 755 naval vessels compared to 55 for the Soviets.

I was wondering about the allocation to the german navy interms of fuel and steel...its seems to have been heavy and I'm not sure if that effort was worth it at all. It seems to me WW-II [Europe] was won and lost on land.Maybe one of the biggest mistakes the germans made was to try to compete at sea as well as land and air?

We often judge the value of a historical victory based on the opponent...few people put much on the coalition victory over iraq or Israeli victory over the arabs....could the germans have been a much tougher opponent had they been better managed at the strategic direction level?Where is the transistion point between victory and defeat?...could the germans have won in 1941, if so how much would it have taken?

[Dez H]

WWII was a numbers game, he who produced the most tanks, guns, planes and equipment was going to win the war. Give me the tanks and scrap the big ships, they had proved totally useless to the German empire for over 100 years. Germany should have been building long range 4 engine bombers, more torpedo planes, tanks and assault guns.

[Von Strehmel]

Prewar planing

To explan the German battlship you need to remember that the Navy war planing for a war in 46. That what Hitler said was the earlest time war could happen. Because of this the German Navy adoped the Z-plan. When it would have been compleated the German Navy would have been one the most powerfun in the world. It would have consisted of 10 battleships, 3 battlecrusers 12 pocked battlships, 5 heavy cruisers, 20 light crusers 4 aircraft carriers, 60 distroyers, and 150 subs. This would have put German on a footing to contest British domance in the Alantic.
Churchhill said that the only thing that scared him during the war was the German U-boats. They were the only thing that came close to defeating Britain after the Battle of Britain ended. In 1941 they were meare months from severing the British liveline to America, But Hitler wouldn't give Adm. Dorinz the 300 U-boats he wanted until it was too late.
Also the German ship yards couldn't be used for tank perduction. They are meare assemble yards all the finished materians are brought in by railroad. For example, Krupp made the naval guns and MAN the diesel engiens.
On the fuel oil issue I due belive the Tirpiz wasn't able to do much in 43-44 because the lack of fuel oil. To solve the Germans Army's fuel crunch, they should have made the total swich to diesel engins. In 45 the Germans were swimming in diesel fuel and no U-boat went to sea on half a tank.
In conclusing I belive I can sum up Germany's war effort problem is one quoat by German historian Richard Overy,
"There was no straight line of command between Fuhrer and factory. In between lay a web of ministries,plenipotentiaries and Party commissars, each with their own apparatus, interests and rubber stamps, producing more than the usual weight of bureacratic inertia. At the end of the line was a business community, most of whom remained wedded to entrepreneurial indpendence, and resented the jumbled administration, the corrupt Nazi Party backs, the endless form-filling, which stifled what voluntary efforts they might have made to transform the war economy."