Warning: session_start(): open(/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php74/sess_12b52d014a226d6e361578ec862651b357fab91d2f3f1c09, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /home/devwehrmacht/public_html/forums/includes/vb5/frontend/controller/page.php on line 71 Warning: session_start(): Failed to read session data: files (path: /var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php74) in /home/devwehrmacht/public_html/forums/includes/vb5/frontend/controller/page.php on line 71 German 'Technical Superiority' was it at all? - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums
MedalsMilitary

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

German 'Technical Superiority' was it at all?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    German 'Technical Superiority' was it at all?

    Much has been said about the vaunted German technical expertise when it came to panzer design. Were the interleavened road wheel designs and their complex drive trains and transmissions really necessary when compared to the reliable American Shermans and the rugged Soviet T-34's.

    If they were not involved in an all-out war vs most of the free (and not so free) world, perhaps these designs would have had merit. In the context of the overwhelming Allied superiority in production, complexity should have been dropped in favor of design simplicity and reliability and the concentration of panzer production spread over a much smaller of amount of proven designs.

    When one looks over the sheer number of AFV design that germany attempted to produce one can only shake their head in disbelief. The production capacity of the German factories making so many variations of AFV must have been so draining to the overall ability to produce quantity which was what they really needed.

    The Allies were the ones who could afford the more complex designs as their supply structure was not being strategically bombed day and night as was the Germans.

    Why did the Germans attempt such complexity in their design theory and practice? Surely reports back from the frontlines let them realize that the technical advantages they tried to build into their panzers and AFV's translated into understrength panzer divisions by the way of breakdown, overloaded part logistics/overworked mechanics.

    Did the dictatorship affect german design evolution heavily? I know Hitler personally oversaw certain designs from start to finish. Were the mechanical engineers merely trying to impress their superiors when drawing up the various concepts for future AFV designs without thinking of actual combat reliability and logistics?

    panzers forward!

    panzerboy39
    Last edited by panzerboy39; 07-29-2004, 10:19 AM.

    #2
    Ouch!

    There are probably several answers to your questions:

    - Germans knew they could not compete with USSR regarding number of tanks produced. The only solution was to build betterns, though in smaller quantities. This,maybe, with Nazi tendency of spending ressources in search of "the best".

    - there were not really a large number of tank designs built at the same moment: at the beginning of the war, Skoda 38t, Pz III (AT), Pz IV (support), end of the war, only Tiger II (heavy), Panther and Pz IV (mediums). Fact is that Germans had to use everything available, even obsolete designs, modified or not, as stopgaps, along with new tanks. 21 PzDiv had so Pz IVC with short 75mm:L24 gun and French Somua as late as 1944. In some PzDiv, missing Pz were simply replaced by Sturmgechützen, which is not really a tank.

    - some designs were simply manufactured because factories were equipped for, like the Skoda which became Hetzer.

    Comment


      #3
      It also seems to simply be a German trait- to engineer the hell out of things. Virtually EVERYTHING they made is complex and well-designed... perhaps overdesigned for the needs at the time. It honestly doesn't seem to be a situation of 'we can't beat them with numbers so we'll do it with quality' as German stuff has always been of high quality.

      Comment


        #4
        Not exactly!

        "- there were not really a large number of tank designs built at the same moment: at the beginning of the war, Skoda 38t, Pz III (AT), Pz IV (support), end of the war, only Tiger II (heavy), Panther and Pz IV (mediums)."

        For the beginning of the war, I agree. Towards the end, I disagree. Add to those Panzers, all the various panzerjagers, jagdpanzers, self propelled guns and various Sdkfz and mobile AAA platforms and you end up with an astonishing amount of different vehicle types (and parts) to produce. Add this to the extra logistics and mechanics due to the design complexity and you end up with panzer production chaos! Should have streamlined design! Only one (or two) of each design type should have been produced, period. One Panzer, one stug, one jagdpanzer, one panzerjager ect. Would have gone a long war into easing production/supply problems.

        panzers forward!

        panzerboy39

        Comment


          #5
          was it racial arrogance?

          Why, in the face of all the problems created by such complex designs did they persist throughout the war? Was it a racial superiority thing that everything the Germans made had to be cutting edge technology, even to the detriment of production simplicity and economics? I think it went a long way toward the nazi's losing the war. Accounts of large percentages of panzer divisions over-all combat strength due to mechanical loss are a tell-tale sign that something was wrong with the way they designed/maintained their panzers. Germans are famous for having effecient systems with all areas, from design to production to maintenence being all very well thought out. What happened in the latter part of the war? Designs ballooned, when they should have been streamlined. That is the million dollar question for me. Was it desperation? A case of one hand operating blind from the other?

          panzers forward!

          panzerboy39

          Comment


            #6
            Tanks - Numbers vs Technical Superiority

            Just a thought - when I was a young shavetail lieutenant up on the Fulda Gap, guarding Germany against the Russian hoards in the early 80s with my M60A1s and M60A3s, the higher-ups always told us: "Don't worry about the hoards of Russian tanks; one M60 can take out 10 lousy T-62s any day!"

            I'm just glad we never had to put it to the test...



            Greg
            sigpicFacebook "Tigers in the Ardennes" book page
            www.facebook.com/TigersintheArdennes

            Comment


              #7
              No, panzerboy, „racial arrogance“ would not be the right word for it.

              It was just the German way (or try) to compensate the enemie´s langer number of tanks.

              It may be more rational to produce more weapons at a lower comlexity (and lower cost) from the point of view we have nowadays as we know of the disatvantages of the complicated design.

              But in the days of the WW it seemed to be reasonable to build the most perfect tank.

              Besides it is a part of “German nature” to produce technical things that are somehow complicated.

              I mean compare a German car with an American one - you have always a mirror that shows the way of thinking.

              I don’t know if you´ve ever been in Germany, but everything here is a little “over-regulated”. Just look at the many laws if you want to run a business or the traffic shields: Everywhere you get the impression that there is an effort to make everything perfect.

              The thing is that obviously simple solutions would often work better - a fact that we see also in the WW II.

              Comment


                #8
                How about this for a thought. The German armor was not that superior as a whole. Certainly there is a good argument for this based on their poor reliability. The one area where they were definately superior was in armaments and optics (though I have seen the Russian gunsite in Littlefields T-34 and it is quite good). The interleaved roadwheels of the Tiger and Panther were not a good system and the Germans realized this by deleting that feature on the Tiger II. Their armor improvements came after the painful discovery of the T-34 which totally outclassed everything the Germans had until the advent of the Tiger I. It is a testament to the German qualities of ingenuity and engineering that they were able to come up with their answer to the T-34 and Kv series as fast as they did. It is a classic example of their propensity to over design everything. There is a huge difference between engineering and designing. They designed vehicles to meet a specific goal and used existing powertrains and armaments to do this. The designs that failed were the ones that were cobbled together. The Panther was designed to meet a goal but then the engineers had enough time to fix the problems inherent in the design and improve the design further based on experiences from the field. The major weekness of all German AFV design was the powertrain. The Maybach engines are works of art but an absolute bitch to maintain.
                One other fact that most researchers never take into consideration is that Germany did not go into full war production until 1945! The U.S. had allready started cancelling programs in 1943! We were at full war production for less than two years! Hitler belived that the people would not accept the privations of a full wartime economy so prevented that until he no longer had a choice and by then it was way, way, too late.
                As for the wasting of critical resources on vengeance weapons, that has been covered by others in far greater detail elsewhere.

                Cheers
                Gary



                Originally posted by panzerboy39
                Much has been said about the vaunted German technical expertise when it came to panzer design. Were the interleavened road wheel designs and their complex drive trains and transmissions really necessary when compared to the reliable American Shermans and the rugged Soviet T-34's.

                If they were not involved in an all-out war vs most of the free (and not so free) world, perhaps these designs would have had merit. In the context of the overwhelming Allied superiority in production, complexity should have been dropped in favor of design simplicity and reliability and the concentration of panzer production spread over a much smaller of amount of proven designs.

                When one looks over the sheer number of AFV design that germany attempted to produce one can only shake their head in disbelief. The production capacity of the German factories making so many variations of AFV must have been so draining to the overall ability to produce quantity which was what they really needed.

                The Allies were the ones who could afford the more complex designs as their supply structure was not being strategically bombed day and night as was the Germans.

                Why did the Germans attempt such complexity in their design theory and practice? Surely reports back from the frontlines let them realize that the technical advantages they tried to build into their panzers and AFV's translated into understrength panzer divisions by the way of breakdown, overloaded part logistics/overworked mechanics.

                Did the dictatorship affect german design evolution heavily? I know Hitler personally oversaw certain designs from start to finish. Were the mechanical engineers merely trying to impress their superiors when drawing up the various concepts for future AFV designs without thinking of actual combat reliability and logistics?

                panzers forward!

                panzerboy39

                Comment


                  #9
                  So Hitler really did care!

                  "The interleaved roadwheels of the Tiger and Panther were not a good system and the Germans realized this by deleting that feature on the Tiger II. "

                  ??? The Tiger II's road wheel system was pretty much a carbon copy of the panthers? Just a bit more weight riding on them.

                  "One other fact that most researchers never take into consideration is that Germany did not go into full war production until 1945! The U.S. had allready started cancelling programs in 1943! We were at full war production for less than two years! Hitler belived that the people would not accept the privations of a full wartime economy so prevented that until he no longer had a choice and by then it was way, way, too late."

                  Do you mean that Germany did'nt reach it's production peak for AFV's until 1945? I'm pretty sure they were a fully mobilized wartime economy before that. After losing the entire 6th Army at Stalingrad in 1943 was probably a good sign to get the ball rolling don't you think? I know they produced more AFV's per month in the final stages of the war than at any other period of the war, but this does'nt mean they were'nt fully mobilized until then.

                  "Hitler belived that the people would not accept the privations of a full wartime economy so prevented that until he no longer had a choice and by then it was way, way, too late."

                  The german people were sacrificing their pampered 'lounging about in lederhosen' lifestyle well before 1945. (sometime after the 3 million man Operation Barbarossa and most certainly after Air marshall 'Bomber' Harris' total war solution of indiscriminate bombing/slaughter of German civilians I would imagine) Did Hitler really care about public opinion? Maybe he was'nt such a bad guy after all? This is just my opinion, is there a good source behind your claim?

                  "As for the wasting of critical resources on vengeance weapons, that has been covered by others in far greater detail elsewhere."
                  - Here, here, good point! Total waste of wartime production!

                  panzers forward!

                  panzerboy39

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I think Albert Speer would very much disagree with you panzerboy! Germany's wartime economy came second to the comfort of Germany's citizens for the vast majority of the war, as Gary points out.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Greg Walden
                      Just a thought - when I was a young shavetail lieutenant up on the Fulda Gap, guarding Germany against the Russian hoards in the early 80s with my M60A1s and M60A3s, the higher-ups always told us: "Don't worry about the hoards of Russian tanks; one M60 can take out 10 lousy T-62s any day!"

                      I'm just glad we never had to put it to the test...



                      Greg
                      Hi Greg, as I said in my reply to another topic I'm new here and trawl through the long list of topics.

                      If you were at the Fulda gap at the beginning of the 80ies, you would have met T-64s from GSSD and a mix of 55s and some 72s from the NVA. I would say that the M-60A2 would have had a chance but not ncessarily an A1.
                      I myself was a tanker from 86-89 (commander on a T-72 in Tank Regiment 22, 9th Tank Divison, NVA). And, like you, I'm glad that whatever we trained for was never put to the test.

                      Dag

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I think it is just german nature (and that from me, a german getting all the crap from colleagues in the uk about being perfectionist, LoL).

                        At the beginning of WW2 it looked all okay. Blitzkrieg etc against countries which were known to the germans in every respect (terrain etc). However, I think seriously misjudgedthe problems in large country like the Soviet Union. They just could not even think about loosing more tanks then they can produce.

                        It was not for nothing that german tank crews wanted the indutry to copy the T-34 as they soon realised how good it was in such conditions. (see Guderians autobiography "Achtung Panzer").

                        And all my respect for the men, women and children who built the tanks in conditions like this. And to consider that they moved their factories over nearly 2000 miles to the East without reducing production numbers significantly....And the same to all the sailors on the ships which crossed the Atlantic to get tanks to the UK, The SU and to the thetares in North Africa and later Italy!

                        Dag

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by panzerboy39
                          The german people were sacrificing their pampered 'lounging about in lederhosen' lifestyle well before 1945. (sometime after the 3 million man Operation Barbarossa and most certainly after Air marshall 'Bomber' Harris' total war solution of indiscriminate bombing/slaughter of German civilians I would imagine) Did Hitler really care about public opinion? Maybe he was'nt such a bad guy after all? This is just my opinion, is there a good source behind your claim?
                          Originally posted by panzerboy39
                          panzerboy39


                          i could dredge up many references, but i cant be bothered, sorry!

                          this is absolutely true.. simple reference is mein kampf, hitler beleived that germany was betrayed by the home front for giving up the fight ... he beleived that if the home econmy was good, spirits would be good and the impetus for war and success will continue until victory...

                          a good point is also that the allies, including of course the soviets, mobilised women to take up the factory positions of men that went off to war. Nazi ideology abhored this concept. The nazi idea of duetsche frauen did not fit in with factory labor. They were the reproductive, virtuous and spiritual organ of the state. The slave labour used did not make up for the quanitiy or quailty of labour that britian and the US had for example.

                          also something that hasn't been mentioned, the polycracy of nazi germany meant that inefficiencies exsisted because many leaders had conflicting interests.. eg, minister for labour, minister for arnaments and say minister for resources, all bickering amongst each other given the simple task to build tanks for example... The fact that Albert Speer tripled monthly tank production late in the war when finally given autonomy by Hitler points to this fact..

                          edit: forgot to make my point !!

                          soo, with these considerations, the conclusion was the need for quick victory (hence blitzkrieg tactic).. the population would not suffer a long stalemate again, he needed results.. he also knew that germany could not compete with the combined industrial might of the allies in the long term, so it necessitated the need for technical superiority over numbers... sure they did manage to build a lot, but by the end of the war they were already dipping into 17 year olds to fill the front and they were well into a materials and oil crisis.

                          everything about germany at the time, from its citizens will to fight and carry the burden, to the governmental set up, needed quick victories and quailty over quantity at the front... this was even reflected in the tactical arrangements in the front.. eg fast hitting tanks at the fore, with infantry filling the gaps... the need for automatic rifles was even overlooked early on because they saw the infantry only in mop up operations behind the advance, the rifle was a secondary weapon to MG teams... etc

                          ps: i really hope you are kidding about that hitler thing.. normally i would take it as a joke, but somethings not even i screw around with. (and thats saying something!!)

                          cheers,
                          joe
                          Last edited by JosefII; 10-12-2004, 09:55 AM.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Not a racist, just an ***hole!

                            Hey Joe,

                            I'm not supposed to be posting here anymore (my own decision) but I read up occasionally on what the community is doing and saying. In this case I have to make sure I defend my name. No Joe, I did not say the Hitler 'nice guy, thing in seriousness, I was joking. I an A**hole, not a racist Hitler lover.

                            I also pulled out Speers memoirs and Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to check up on the mobilized economy and it turns out ya'll were correct, my bad!

                            panzers forward!

                            panzerboy39

                            Comment


                              #15
                              nah probably my bad.. the net is notorious for misudnerstandings like these...

                              still, i am a little troubled by stuff like that.. last copy of mein kampf i borrowed (for academic purposes) had right wing messages kindly left for all to see.. they were probably just doing it for a rise, then again far right parties still enjoy support the world over...

                              and well... this is a wermacht forum and all... !

                              its all good,

                              joe

                              Comment

                              Users Viewing this Thread

                              Collapse

                              There is currently 1 user online. 0 members and 1 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 10,032 at 08:13 PM on 09-28-2024.

                              Working...
                              X