German logistics and railroads

I would compare the German plans against the Soviets equal to that of the Japanese against the US. We cant fight a long war, therefore the war will be short and our enemies will just quit.

 

I have to disagree with that considering that when Germany attacked the Soviet Union there was no expectation of US involvement and the UK was marginalized. Germany was economically stronger than the Soviet Union, apples and oranges to the US/Japan situation really. You have to look at it from the perspective of 1940, not 1943-post war.

 

Germany did not have a stronger economy. Even with all the western countries under its control the SOviets were able to outproduce Germany

 

Germany had a stronger economy, its an undeniable fact Steve. GDP figures below (add Austria's to Germany's post 1938 Aunchluss). Also consider the small amount that Germany did receive from the captured territories and its a clear cut situation. Soviet production was significantly enhanced by LL also, specifically; sheet steel, aircraft aluminium and trucks (which allowed the Soviets to concentrate on other equipment).



1937 1938 1939 1940 1941

USSR 359 366 417 359 274
Germany 351 384 387 412 417
Austria 24 27 27 29 27

 

Those numbers are irrelevant since they don't reflect the war. By the way if German production was so great why did they have to use PZ2 at the start of Barbarossa.

 

I don't know if this had been said yet, but I think that Hitler and his generals were surprised by the rasputitsa (Time of mud or TIme without roads) on the Russian front. The railways as have been noted before were of a noarrower guage than German railroads. Also I belive the Germans had the Autobahnen at this point. If Hitler had actuaqlly gained a stable position in Russia without threat from the Red Army's early and futile but annoying counter attacks, he may have built an extension of the Autobahn. He said once; in reference to the Soviet Union: "We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down"

Hitler had not prepared the Wermacht for a long campaign, he may have had good tacticians for his generals, but he himself was an awful strategist, and not a very good military leader, when he was in the German army in WWI he never got above the rank of private.

 

I disagree. The numbers are quite relevant. They may however be somewhat misleading. Given the economic policies of the Germans and the Soviets calculating the true GDP in dollars is rather problematic. On the other hand the allied economies were pretty well integrated even before the US entered the war.

What is irrelevant is the question about the Pz-2 and could be answered with why were the Soviets defending with BTs.

How much of the economy was devoted to the war effort vs the civilian economy is also a point worth considering especially in the years from 1938 to 1942 and perhaps even after that.

 

I'd be typing all day, but there is a good relevant section in the Total War Chapter of Richard Overy's The Dictators if any one has a copy to hand...I don't have a copier at present or I'd just reproduce the section.

I'm with LWD.

But we are then going to get into the old Lend Lease saved Russia argument all over again.

 

The relevance of the PZ2 is that the Germans had to use them in 1941 in the first place. They were already obsolete two years earlier and it just shows how poor German production was that they couldn't replace them two years after they knew they were outdated. The Soviets had BT's because they hadn't started producing the T34 and Kv1 yet in good numbers.

 

If you believe the numbers are irrelevant I suggest you look elsewhere beyond the PzII and look at artillery, munitions, aircraft (modern types) and be mindful that the Germans out produced the Soviets in steel and just about every other major category of key strategic materials (aside from oil).

The key here is that WHAT the Germans produced was based upon their assumptions of how Barbarossa was going to go and that was based upon terribly flawed Intelligence. Do you think Hitler just woke up one day and had a notion out of thin air that the Soviets were weak, or perhaps is it possible that he may have been given a great deal of information by his staff that convinced him that was the case? Blame the decision maker or the guys that provided the bad info? Hmmmm.....
If better Intelligence was provided I believe its safe to say that the support plan for Barbarossa would have been considerably different as well as the mid-term industrial decisions to support major operations with the proper equipment, spare parts, personnel, etc.(if not cancel the whole undertaking).

 

They were hardly obsolete as they still performed their function and did a pretty good job of it. Obsolecent perhaps but that's another matter. Your counter with the Soviets is just obsurd. They had to use BT's because that's what they had. The Germans had to use Pz-2s because that's what they had. Both were building better tanks. The Germans were also putting a fair amount of resources into the KM and the civilian economy as well. You are getting designs and production mixed up with industrial capacity. That would be like saying the US industry wasn't as strong as the Germans because they were still using (and producing!) M-4s in 1945.

 

The Soviets decided to faze out the BT series in 1940 and they did not use them after they had production of the T34 and KV1 going in later 1941, so say one year. Yes they used them because they did had them, but they were no longer using them because they could replace them. The PZ 2 was obsolete in 1939 and the Germans were still forced to use them two years later, and they were so bad they could no longer be used except as recon vehicles. The relevance is that the Germans had to use a tank that was obsolete in the late 30's because they could not produce enough tanks to fill in the needs of their tank divisions. The Soviets were producing no BT tanks in 1941 and were easily able to produce T34's and KV1 to fill their needs.
Even with the loss of so much of their economy, the Soviets could still build more tanks, planes artillery and such.

 

Really? I have a hard time believeing that. Now they may have lost most of them in that period but I don't see them not using them if they had them especially when they were crying for anything from the western allies at that point. Then if we look at production in 1941 (admittedly wiki but):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
It shows only 2,800 T-34 and 1,121 KVs produced. While the Germans continued to produce the Pz-2 into 44 in most cases after 42 it was not being produced as a tank (agian wiki):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
But this doesn't mean either had the stronger economy. For instance how many battleships did the Soviets produce in this period or cruisers for that matter?
Oh and looking a bit further I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank

So much for them not being used after 41.

??? Just because they were used as recon vehicles doesn't mean they were bad. If they were fulfilling that role then they were not obsolete despite your repeated statements to that affect. Perhaps you don't know what the word means. Here's are a couple of defintions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolete

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/obsolete

All of which is only of marginal relevance to the relative strength of the economies however. Let's look at some more general parameters that will give a better indicator of that. From Wages of Destruction page 641 in the paper back edition Table 17.
The German GDP in 1941 is listed as 412 and in 1944 437
The Soviet GDP is listed as 359 and 495.
If we look at steel production in 39 and 44
German it's 21,258 and 24,212
USSR it's 18,796 and 16,350.
It's pretty clear that early war the German economy was stronger. By 44 the Soviet economy does look to be stronger but then it's getting the full benefit of LL by that point.

 

Production of Soviet tanks in the second half of 1941: 4867,of which 1886 T34

july;595
august:820
september:716
october:637
november:880
december:1219

Sourceroduction of AFVs 1941-1945

 

About the steel production :it is not because Germany produced more steel that its economy was stronger,it also could be that the SU was able to continue the war by producing less steel than Germany .

 

One of the fundamental references as to ecoomic strength in the 20th century was steel production. It is a very strong indicator that the German economy was indeed stronger than the Soviet one at that point in time. By 43 though Germany wasn't just fighting the Soviets indeed even in 41 Germany wasn't just fighting the Soviets. Thus the Soviet economy didn't have to be stronger than the German one for them to win. There is also more to war than just the economy. Population can also have considerable impact and less tangible things like "national will", intelligence, and command ability. One of the things that is often not pointed out is that on the operational and strategic levels the Soviets eclipsed the Germans some time in mid war. Whether it was in 42 or 43 could be debated and was probably different for the two. That had it's own impact. Claiming the Soviet economy was supperior in 41 or 42 however has little support, indeed nothing on this thread has pointed to it.

 

The BT was as good as anything as the Japanese had. What I meant was the BT tanks were not used by the Soviets against the Germans. The PZ 2 chassis was used for the Wespe and Marder 2. The PZ2 was determined by the Germans to be unacceptable for combat use during the Polish campaign, yet they had no way to replace it. Come on it only had a 20mm cannon for armament and that is an acceptable tank?? The BT7 had a 47mm gun If the German economy was so great then how come they were badly out produced. Only in one year did Germany come close to Soviet production and that was in 1944, that is still 5000 less then what the Soviets had in 1942. That does not even include artillery, mortars, aircraft and such.

 

Were they? From the data I've seen it doesn't appear so. Let's see the data.

That's what armored vehicles? That's a pretty poor indicator of the total economy.

Indeed and the "and such" is important if you want to compare the overall economy. Steel production is a fairly decent indicator of the "and such" and it shows a German supperiority. Having alluminum and power production would also help a lot.

This paper has some clues and information of general interest but doesn't provide a defintive answer to the question under discussion:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf&embedded=true
Those interested in this topic may also find this one of interest although again it does not provide a good answer to the question under discussion:
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/90001365.pdf
This link may provide us with more of an answer but it will take some time to digest:
http://bcproxy/?cfru=aHR0cDovL2NpdGVzZWVyeC5pc3QucHN1LmVkdS92aWV3ZG9jL2Rvd25sb2FkP2RvaT0xMC4xLjEuMTEuNDIzNyZyZXA9cmVwMSZ0eXBlPXBkZg==

Here's one quote from it that directly relates to the question:

 

Childrens prams certainly don't have any bearing on the conduct of the war, so what relevance do civilians products have on war logistics. Just one month after the start, AGC was talking about breaking up tank divisions because losses from all types reached 70&. July, only 40 replacements engines were received for all tanks. Youre are arguing a different thing then I am. First, Germany never had the means of occupying to the Urals. They didn't have the trucks, they had planned on capturing Soviet rail line and engines to make up for the time gap between converting the rail lines. Second it was both Hitler and the generals fault that they conned them selves into believing the Soviets would not fight. The generals knew from their gaming that their logistics would begin to collapse after reaching Smolensk, but they did nothing because Hitler wouldn't listen and the generals had already been wrong about the invasion of France.

 

We were talking about the strength of the economy. Civilian products have a lot to do with that. Especially when you consider there was considerable dual use production capability and civilian production represented additional productiong that in many cases could be converted to military given the need and time.

Which is almost completely irrelevant to the strenth of the economy.

Indeed we (i.e. several of us that I thought included you) were discussing the relative strength of the German and Soviet economies. Apparently either weren't or have given up on that. I am somewhat mistified as to why you kept saying you were talking about the economy however. Especially since much of what you said made little sense in that regard.

No? Are you sure? Why?

The Mongols didn't have trucks or trains yet occupied a far larger area.

Which of course they did not. They did think the Soviet system would collapse more readily than it did but that's not the same thing.

Which if it post dated the Soviet collapse would have resulted in a victory. Even if it didn't if they halted long enough to replenish a continued offense was still possible. Especially if the Soviets hadn't proven as resiliant as they did which I don't think anyone could have predicted. Indeed in 1939 didn't France appear to be both stronger and more resiliant than the Soviets? Weren't you the one a few pages back by the way who said it wasn't logistics or the weather or the terrain?

This makes me wonder has anyone here been suggesting the above was likely? If not does this not constitute a strawman?