decisive battle debate

WRONG. So I reiterate

"So the regulation made truck transport far more expensive than under conditions of competition leading to a loss in gross national product"
- Richard Vahrenkamp in "The Logistics Revolution: The rise of logistics in the Mass Consumption Society".

 

But in spite of the legal and economic restrictions under which the trucks operated, in spite of the corrupt dominance of the failing, inefficient railway system that was seeing its business threatened, they still captured at least 6 percent of the long haul market. The very market, you claimed which was the railway's most efficient. According to you, Germany only needed Railways, cargo boats, and horses in this period.

The fact is, it was forbidden by law for haulers to compete against the railway in the long haul market. Those laws remained in force after the war as well. Yet you maintain there was no need. How can a business go from non-existent to a 6 percent market share, when the rest of the economy is shrinking in a global economic crisis, in the face of pro-monopoly laws, if there is no need? No wonder the railways were feeling threatened.

 

It is relevant, because the capacity of the truck does double. if you wish to claim inefficiency in the very rare event of a breakdown, you'd have to show how frequently those occurred, and how long they took to repair. It's already been stated, drivers made roadside repairs and continued on their way. So the number of drivers is a definite boon.

We've shown there was a definite benefit to Germans and Germany already in the interbellum (which you denied).

The Railways already understood they were a thing of the past. Across Europe, they were panicking against the rising tide of long-distance truck haulage, and were begging regulatory assistance to maintain their advantage. Right across Continental Europe. As governments were involved in their national railways, they stepped in and restricted economic growth. Despite this, long haulage still took market shares across Europe. Considering the legal, monetary and bureaucratic challenges facing the haulers in a time of economic constriction, this is truly amazing, and witnesses a huge need, and lost opportunity for Europe as a whole.

 

Where did I say this ?

I said that the German and European economy was dominated by railways/coal ,not by motor transport /oil ;the impact of this on the war was that for every one,the railroads were more importing than motor transport;this does not mean that motor transport was not needed in the war,but that more/less motor transport was not essential .
In 1940,the Allies had more MT than the Germans and lost,if they had less MT than the Germans,they also would have lost .

In 1944,the Allies won and failed ,while they had more MT than the Germans :if they had less /more MT than in the OTH,the result would be the same .

the same happened in 1941:The Germans won and failed,while they had more MT than, the Soviets :if they had less /more MT than in the OTL,the result would be the same .

In both cases there was no correlation between the amount of MT and what happened.

That's why I am saying that more or less MT for the Ostheer would have changed nothing,and that's why the Germans needed not more MT /trucks in 1941.

 

Proof that the railway system was failing ?

 

Re-read post #310 again. Cologne-North was just one example. It was occurring all over Germany. The major cities were getting strangled.

Read Richard Vahrenkamp's "The Logistics Revolution: The rise of logistics in the Mass Consumption Society". It has further details I can't be bothered typing out. Suffice to say, because of the failure of the circle stations and circular routes around the major cities, trucks had to be used to get the goods efficiently across the city, rather than use the railways. We're talking about goods that were not intended to be delivered to that city at all, had to be unloaded at one of the train stations and hauled by truck across the city, to a station on the other side of the city, and then reloaded onto a wagon, and then wait for an appropriate train. Instead of continuing the journey by train around the city on the circular route.

Much Long-distance goods were not getting transported (as is oft-claimed by railway supporters) via efficient long-distance train runs, but via short hops with long waits in between, thus hindering economic activity. Which was why companies were willing to pay truck haulers to deliver goods over long distances, but that was illegal unless the delivery was intra-company (branch-to-branch), and this before the autobahns increased truck-haulage efficiency even further.

 

I would not be that self-confident to argue that these problems are indicating a railway failure :the railway defenders will argue that they are indicating a failure of the road traffic : if trucks had problems to connect 2 railway stations on a very short distance,they also would have problems to transport goods on long distances .

Besides,the problems were not the fault of the railways but had historical reasons; exemple :Brussels had 2 railway stations,one in the north and one in the south without a connection between both: no one was waiting for a railway through the center of the city,a circular route was also out of the question (there was to much political opposition).The solution was : a tunnel (it took more than 50 years) .The same happened in a lot of other cities as Paris and London .

The problem was that the cities existed before the railways and that the railwayshad to adapt to the "aborigines" ..In Germany,the problem was exarcerbated because Germany was a federal state ,the Reichsbahn existed only much later .

Exemple there was a railway from city A to city B (both belonging to the same state),the railway ended at city B .Later ,there was a railway from city C (belonging to an other state) to city B ,without connecting both stations,because,to connect both stations (circular route or through the city) would cost a lot of money ,and,who would pay this ? The taxpayers of course,but ,from which state ?

There is a ring round Brussels,but certain exits are lacking,because the exits are located on the territory of Flanders and the Flemish government is not willing to pay for something they consider to be a problem of Brusses .

It is the same with the circular routes for the railways :these would traverse not the city,but other towns and villages and those are not willing to sacrifice themselves for the city .This problem exist also for the roads/highways,and are not proving a failing road traffic .

 

" if trucks had problems to connect 2 railway stations on a very short distance,they also would have problems to transport goods on long distances ." is a highly speculative, compared to the structural issues experienced by the railway repeatedly seen throughout Germany in this period.

Brussels and your so-called "historical reasons" isn't relevant; what is relevant is the urban growth, and increased traffic flow. The railways system hadn't managed to grow adequately, and was failing to fulfill people's needs. It's success was based on delivering high volumes of low value goods adequately. It couldn't deliver low volume, high value goods with adequate speed. Accept that failure is a failure. Anything else, is just an excuse, and a poor one at that.

Companies that want to sell their goods, and the consumers that want to buy them, aren't really interested in hearing or knowing about the historical and political reasons why the railroads are failing them, and are even less so inclined when there is a perfectly good alternative capable of delivering the goods in time, at an affordable cost.

 

LJAD and if a wagon breaks down then how useful is it, are you contending that no wagon ever broke down or no horse ever got tired or hurt???. If the horse was so great and beneficial why did the US abandon the horse and the Soviet Union make the transition to motorized. As far as the railroad, in 1941 the rail lines that the Germans thought they would capture intact could only supply about 40% (from memory) of the planned capacity requiring the use of far more horses and trucks. Again you keep confusing the ability of the Germans to produce enough trucks with the usefulness of trucks. As you make it sound, no truck ever worked. In fact listening to you I wonder why there were trucks or tanks at all.

 

We're not saying the Germans had a great truck or could produce enough, but that does not mean that the truck is superior to the horse in transporting long distances

 

It is not a question if the truck was superior to the horse,but,if more trucks would be better for the Germans .That a truck was better than a horse does not mean that more trucks would benefit the Germans .What would be the benefit for the Germans if they had more trucks ?That's the question .

 

That does not prove that more trucks would benefit the Germans .


You are arguing from the wrong POV that,because trucks had more capacity than horses,more trucks would benefit the Germans ,which is not so .

In 1940,the Germans won in 6 weeks,with (not because) a combination of horses and trucks which was inferior to that of the allies; if they had now more trucks,would they have won in 5 weeks,4 weeks ?

There is no corelation between the number of trucks/MT and the result of a campaign,thus was it irrelevant if the Germans had more MT in the summer of 1941 .

 

It is not because /if the railways were failing that road transport would do better .

 

can you show that having less trucks and more horses would be better?? Again you keep combining two separate arguments, if Germany had the ability to build more and better trucks would that not benefit them. Look at the Soviets, the lend lease trucks they got from the US made their ability to conduct long distance offenses possible. Just look at how far they were able to move in 1944 compared to 1942. There is a reason the horse was abandoned as a means of transportation. You keep trying to say trucks cant be used because they wont work, the problem the Germans had was not having enough good trucks. The main problem the Germans had in advancing is that the infantry could not keep up with the tanks, with the right trucks things could have been different.

 

1)This is not the question:the question is : would more trucks be better and why ?

2) This is more than questionable :the long distance offensives were made possible because the Germans had collapsed,once they recovered,the Soviets were stopped

3) Yes

4) No :infantry in trucks was much to vulnerable,only infantry on foot could protect the tanks : the trucks were coffins :the problem exist still today :the carriers transporting the infantry are offering the infantry not sufficient protection,the only possibility is to have heavier vehicles,something which for a lot of reasons is out of the question.A truck was giving no protection against a panzerfaust .

Besides,in WWII,the armoured divisions had not enough infantry,only the infantry divisions had enough infantry,but,it was out of the question to give the ID enough MT so that they could keep up with the tanks .

It can't be done today,and it was out of the question that it could be done in WWII.

 

The idea situation was armored personnel carriers, but again the issue is that horse drawn support cannot keep up with tanks. I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand. If infantry units can only march 20 to 30 miles a day(with out combat) then that limits tanks to that rate of advance or else leave large gaps between the two. This is what happened in Russia, especially at Yelna where the tanks were stuck in an attrition battle because there was no infantry to take over for the tanks and allow them to advance, The Germans eventually retreated because of the lack of infantry. One other advantage to having trucks is that infantry can rest instead of marching for miles and then having to fight fatigued. As far as infantry the Soviets had two basic armored units, the tank with 2 tank and one infantry unit and the mechanized with two infantry and one tank. the mechanized units were used to guard the flanks and lend additional infantry support. In France the US tanks units were moving as much as 60 miles a day during the pursuit. Yes they eventually out ran the supply line, but if the rate was only the 20 or 30 miles a day max that horse drawn units can march then the Germans would have had a lot more time to set up resistance and prepared the Seigfried line

 

we do have to consider the fact that the amount of German rescources was very limited if you compare it to the amount of soviet rescources

 

Patton was stopped in the autumn,NOT because of supply problems (that's the usual excuse of the front generals) but because the Germans had recovered .If the Germans had collapsed,there would be no supply problems,a few tanks and a batallion of motorised infantry would be sufficient .

Than,it's not the question if horse drawn support can keep with tanks or not.The question is if motorized infantry would allow the tanks to advance and the answer on the eastern front is :NO .If there was infantry to take over for the tanks at Yelna,that does not mean that the tanks could advance :if the infantry remained at Yelna,the infantry could not advance .Thus the tanks could not advance .

 

The problem is that people are arguing in terms of Desert Storm,of long range advances by tanks and motorized units which were deciding the campaign . This was not the case in 1941: the Germans were not planning to go east,they expected the Soviets to go west,where the Germans would wait for them .If the Germans had to go east searching for the Soviets,they had lost .Was there any need for the tanks to advance ? Essentially : no .The Ostheer would go no further than Smolensk .The tank raid to Smolensk was only to prevent the Soviets from withdrawing,something they did not :they were going west .

After a month,motorized German units were at Smolensk.If they were more trucks and less horses,mayne the Germamans would be sooner at Smolensk,but would this benefit the Germans ? No .

 

Of course! That's what Operation Typhoon was all about! Not going East!