Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
HiNot at all, my father spent the whole war on escorts protecting convoys in the N Atlantic and Arctic before going to the far east. He was interred with Merchant seamen in Russia. The whole principle of the Liberty ship was to ensure production exceeded losses. I was just discussing the principle, convoys were not halted due to losses, to wait for new technology as various other campaigns were like leaning into France, RAF daylight raids in 1940 and US daylight raids in 1943. Millions of men lost could not be accepted but tens of thousands could, just a question of magnitude not principle.
The minimal loses were 14,million tons and around 37,000 men, I am aware that huge steps were taken to defend convoys but they were never halted, the principle used by Stalin was the same with the allies in some situations, especially cases like Malta.Hi
Reference "principle" this was as laid down in the February 1939 edition of the RN's 'Anti-Submarine Warfare manual' this confirmed: "... the value of convoy by increasing the difficulty of U-boats in finding targets and, where intelligence was available, of diverting shipping clear of U-boat concentrations." When ULTRA information was available it was most useful in this latter task for much of the war. The whole point was to get the convoy through with minimal losses. (source 'The Royal Navy and Anti-Submarine Warfare, 1917-49' by Malcolm LLewellyn-Jones, page 16).
More likely, infernal intervention...King surviving Paukenschlag may be evidence of divine intervention. His obstinance there cost many Allied lives, both at sea and on the other end of unfulfilled supply lines.
We have to separate MM ships sunk in convoy by U-boats vs ships sunk that were independently routed. The shipping losses during Drumbeat, and subsequent campaigns against the US coasts, for example, were almost entirely ships that were not in convoys.The minimal loses were 14,million tons and around 37,000 men, I am aware that huge steps were taken to defend convoys but they were never halted, the principle used by Stalin was the same with the allies in some situations, especially cases like Malta.
You can also make a pretty convincing argument that lots of their "complicated" products were mostly hard to maintain and produce not so much due to the technology level, but due to very poor management of endless changes and having mind-bendingly vast numbers of sub-types. Even the "easy to make" 109 had a crazy number of sub-variants. All that can be put down to bad upper political project management in my opinion.Something not mentioned yet, or at least I haven't seen it, is what capacity your industry has. If your factory can only turn out 250 units a month of whatever they're building, be it tanks or aircraft, then you want these 250 to be the best they can.
It would make no sense for the Germans to try and outproduce the Allies, the capacity simply wasn't there. Therefore it makes sense to make a tank like the Panther rather then the Sherman. Lot's of 'good enough' tanks was never a possibility, they needed to make a 'superior' product. Whether the Panther actually was a superior product is up for debate.
Hmm, maybe. Though there are several issues with thisSomething not mentioned yet, or at least I haven't seen it, is what capacity your industry has. If your factory can only turn out 250 units a month of whatever they're building, be it tanks or aircraft, then you want these 250 to be the best they can.
It would make no sense for the Germans to try and outproduce the Allies, the capacity simply wasn't there. Therefore it makes sense to make a tank like the Panther rather then the Sherman. Lot's of 'good enough' tanks was never a possibility, they needed to make a 'superior' product. Whether the Panther actually was a superior product is up for debate.
I read somewhere that for the Tiger I tank, on average 13 tanks were produced on the production line before some tweak or improvement was made. Good luck keeping up production rates with that approach, and not much thought spared to the poor sods who had to do field maintenance on those.You can also make a pretty convincing argument that lots of their "complicated" products were mostly hard to maintain and produce not so much due to the technology level, but due to very poor management of endless changes and having mind-bendingly vast numbers of sub-types. Even the "easy to make" 109 had a crazy number of sub-variants. All that can be put down to bad upper political project management in my opinion.
The Germans can certainly be examples of what not to do. In some cases by being too ambitions and/or mucking up the "design" by trying to 'tweak' it part way through the process.
- Just as the 7000 Panthers that they historically produced weren't enough to turn the war around, neither would a hypothetical 14000 'meh, good enough' tanks do in a hypothetical scenario. Or for that matter, 3500 King Tigers instead of the 7000 Panthers.
- One of the most successful German tank(ish) designs was the Stug III, which in essence was a cheap turretless version of the cheap and obsolete Pz III, and by virtue of omitting the turret was able to mount a high velocity 75mm cannon, good for anything on the battlefield except maybe the relatively rare heavy tanks. This allowed them to keep the Pz III production line running, and they churned out 10000 of these. So even the Germans were happy to use 'meh, good enough' equipment.
This problem is somewhat overstated by modern commentators. Yes there were a lot of changes, however moving the shovel brackets on tank number 333 and then moving the crowbar bracket on tank number 350 didn't really affect either production or field maintenanceI read somewhere that for the Tiger I tank, on average 13 tanks were produced on the production line before some tweak or improvement was made. Good luck keeping up production rates with that approach, and not much thought spared to the poor sods who had to do field maintenance on those.
Which fired about the same HE shell and carried more of them and carried a lot more ammo for the machine gun/s. Note that the Stug had to mount the MG on the roof to engage infantry (or anything else). Also please note that 700 of the last MK III tanks built used the short 75mm gun (with around 20 more rounds) than the early Stug IIIs and carried over 5 times the amount of MG ammo (early Short Stugs didn't even have machine gun).
Stugs did very well on defense when the enemy delivered the targets to them, and the Stugs and German infantry could control (somewhat) the enemies approach.
They didn't work so well on the offensive or for dealing with things that didn't have large amounts of armor plate. Having to leave the battle and return to supply point for more ammo after the stug fired 15-20 rounds of HE/smoke and whatever none AP shells it had is a poor use of over 20 tons of vehicle. Solved in the early years (1940/41) by suppling armored ammunitions half tracks for every platoon/battery of Stugs. Which must have been cheaper than sticking the same guns on MK IV chassis and just carrying more ammo on the fighting vehicles.
Doesn't make as many subjects for todays modelers though
This problem is somewhat overstated by modern commentators. Yes there were a lot of changes, however moving the shovel brackets on tank number 333 and then moving the crowbar bracket on tank number 350 didn't really affect either production or field maintenance
This problem is somewhat overstated by modern commentators. Yes there were a lot of changes, however moving the shovel brackets on tank number 333 and then moving the crowbar bracket on tank number 350 didn't really affect either production or field maintenance
To give some idea of what was being done see Osprey New Vanguard 5 "Tiger I Heavy Tank 1942-45"Unfortunately I don't know the nature of these tweaks so can't comment on how much more difficult they generally made production or maintenance. Maybe some were as banal as welding some bracket in a slightly different spot, some were bigger changes?
Germans tended to over specialize. So did the British for a different reason, British wanted fast tanks and with the weight limits that meant thin armor (cruiser tank) and they wanted tanks that could accompany infantry and with the weight limits that meant thick armor and slow speed. At least they put them in different regiments (or planned to).Yes, well, this was the days before the modern concept of the general purpose MBT. Everybody, not just the Germans, apparently strongly believed in the idea of one type of tank-like vehicle for each job. To the point that many vehicles with high-velocity AT guns never got decent HE shells, and thus were rather poor against softer targets.
The truth seems to be in-between, Yes there were a lot of changes on the Tiger that perhaps should have waited for 'batches' but it seems that the critics count every banal change to bolster their argument against it.Unfortunately I don't know the nature of these tweaks so can't comment on how much more difficult they generally made production or maintenance. Maybe some were as banal as welding some bracket in a slightly different spot, some were bigger changes?
Production is not speeded up with enourmous design changes. Its not peace time remember.And why did no PZ IV tank ever get a pointy nose or slightly sloped side armor?
True but they building the MK IV in three different factories, one of which was converted to build the Jagdpanzer IV with sloped armor to just about 1700 examples.Production is not speeded up with enourmous design changes. Its not peace time remember.
They needed all and more and fast. And more . Very much more.
In space launch efforts that is true by at least an order of magnitude greater than for aviation, and aviation requires at least an order of magnitude greater than do ground vehicles. People who assert that aviation or space launch is in reality a lot easier than it is made out to be simply have not had a high speed 2X4 hit them in the head enough times to properly get their attention.So, to finalise, quality is the absolute #1 requirement above all else,
This could also apply to deep-sea vehicle manufacturers/operators.In space launch efforts that is true by at least an order of magnitude greater than for aviation, and aviation requires at least an order of magnitude greater than do ground vehicles. People who assert that aviation or space launch is in reality a lot easier than it is made out to be simply have not had a high speed 2X4 hit them in the head enough times to properly get their attention.
SpaceX scrubbed a Falcon Heavy launch last night in order to check some things out and tonight did the same thing. But when they started in the business they were the type to disparage such caution as being excessive. The legendary 2X4 taught them caution. Most of the people who marched into the space launch business confident that they would show the world how it should be done later crawled out with their tail between their legs; more than few should have been required to crawl into Ft Leavenworth.
This could also apply to deep-sea vehicle manufacturers/operators.
The ones that rush through a design, ignoring experienced input, don't last long.
Germans tended to over specialize. So did the British for a different reason, British wanted fast tanks and with the weight limits that meant thin armor (cruiser tank) and they wanted tanks that could accompany infantry and with the weight limits that meant thick armor and slow speed.