Alternative German tanks & AFVs

[z42]

Hot Take:

Should have used the U-Boat MAN 2100hp Diesels, and their fuel, for US style Locomotives instead of sub warfare for moving things around central Europe and parts East.
View attachment 812485

No Water stops: long range, work great in freezing weather. far higher speed for similar tractive effort. Move that freight fast. 100mph vs 50

Steam locomotives and barges had the big advantages of being able to use coal directly rather than having to first convert the coal to a very expensive liquid fuel.

Also, steam locomotives were a fairly mature technology at that point, and largely worked "well enough". I suspect Germany got a better return on investment in R&D and manufacturing by using those resources for something else.

 

[don4331]

Job One is to get rid of these old friends



View attachment 812538



For efficiency, you're putting in Oats at 8000 BTU/lbs and Hay is similar, into these guys. Each one of those needs around 25 pounds of Hay and 20 pounds of Oats when doing work. It's not much less when not working hard, you got to feed them each day, working or not. Then 15-20 gallons of clean water for how much they are working.
That's your Dual 'One HP' engine. On a wagon, 5-7 mph, with an expected working time of 8 hours, a 40 mile trip for 45 pounds of Fodder and 18 Gallons of water for moving 1.5 tons of cargo.

If you want more weight pulled or to be slightly faster for your Wagon moved cargo, you add two or four more Horses, but for continuous heavy loads, you need Oxen, that are even slower.
Union Army used six horses to pull a limber and 12 Pounder Napoleon cannon, to be able to move the two ton gun and limber into position quickly, but four was more common at the end of the War, from shortages of decent horses, Each pair of horses would have their own driver on the Left horse.

A 124 HP Sentinel Steam wagon, using 1890s technology, uses 4.3 gallons of water and 7.4 lb. of lump lignite coal per mile. 6 ton payload Top speed 30mph(though by UK Law, limited to 8mph at times). Driver and Fireman for crew, though some lines had the Driver drop coal into the Boiler for reducing labor costs.

We're going to agree to disagree for a number of reasons:

a. The value of energy for hay surprises me: The numbers I grew up with, hay had about 1/4 the energy of oats. I agree, you want to be feeding grain to your horse.

One of the advantages of the US Cavalry over Native Americans was the extra energy their grain fed horse had.​

Note: If conditions are damp, you need to get the horses some place dry - just like human toe nails get soft in bath, horses/oxen hooves do. And bad things happen when hooves get soft. It can be a simple as a bunch of logs covered in oats straw, but it needs to be done.​

b. Your steam truck needs time to accelerate and stop; it isn't driving 30mph all the way, especially on unimproved road. Horse will maintain much closer to their 5mph for the whole trip. I'm surprised at your requirement for a driver on each pair/ riding on one; we drove 2 pairs from the comfort of the wagon seat.

In fact in mud/snow, you will need the horses to pull the truck - without weight on the driving wheels a "dually" is useless in adverse conditions. Once you have a load on it, it will do fine. Its why military uses single wheels in tandem, they trade stability on road for performance off road and they're partial to powered front axles and/or tracks.​

The big one in USSR during winter - the horses grow longer coats and stay functional. Your steamer freezes up in the -20 and colder temperatures and will be parked until thawed and damaged parts replaced.​

c. Every German farm boy knows how to handle a team of horses/oxen. Give them a uniform and send them directly to the front. Allies, especially Americans, are all familiar with ICE.
vehicles, so driving a truck/tank/afv for military doesn't take much training. But training WWII German troops to operate ICE vehicles would be pretty much the same as teaching modern troops to operate horses. European farms are small, so it is very difficult for individual farmers to afford a traction engine and the fuel to power it...
d. Hay, grain and water are available everywhere - in Poland, in France, in Russia - you can just confiscate it locally. Coal (and petrol/diesel) need to be hauled in on train (there are a few locations with local coal, but getting supply moving again takes time).
e. Steam is very much like electric, the maximum torque is just after starting/just before stopping. As rpms increase, the torque gradually declines. While both Steam and electric don't necessarily need a transmission, there are advantages to incorporating them (increased speed)

 

[tomo pauk]

We're going to agree to disagree for a number of reasons:

Note: If conditions are damp, you need to get the horses some place dry - just like human toe nails get soft in bath, horses/oxen hooves do. And bad things happen when hooves get soft. It can be a simple as a bunch of logs covered in oats straw, but it needs to be done.

Thank you for pointing that out - vehicles are usually less susceptible to the bad weather, even the steam-powered ones.

The big one in USSR during winter - the horses grow longer coats and stay functional. Your steamer freezes up in the -20 and colder temperatures and will be parked until thawed and damaged parts replaced.

Horses that are accustomed for the milder climates will not simply grew longer coats and pretend that it is +5 deg.
Steamers can be used on the theaters away from the very harsh winters, so the fuel saved can go to the ICE trucks in Russia. Leaving the small fire overnight in the firebox is also an option.

d. Hay, grain and water are available everywhere - in Poland, in France, in Russia - you can just confiscate it locally. Coal (and petrol/diesel) need to be hauled in on train (there are a few locations with local coal, but getting supply moving again takes time).

You can confiscate hay and grain once. Rest assured that next time there will be nothing to confiscate, plus you will have the local populace being even more set against you.
Coal and firewood can be mined/harvested year after year, day after a day.

 

[Shortround6]

Coal and firewood can be mined/harvested year after year, day after a day.

You can only harvest so much firewood per acre per year. It is quite possible to run out if over harvested.
Not all wood has the same heat value, not all is even really suitable. It will burn but moving some of it hundreds of miles to be used somewhere else?
To be really efficient the wood has to be dried (weeks or months).

There was no 'one solution fits all' for the Germans. They needed a multi pronged energy program.
Diesels for German Railroads was pretty much a waste of Diesel fuel. The Diesel engines were more efficient. But coal was cheap and available. In the US oil was used by some steam trains around WW I 1900. It was used even earlier in Russia and Britain. In the US the last Railroads to use coal only started changing over in the 1950s. Using the US as an example because it illustrated the supply problem. Western Railroads changed to oil fuel before 1915. From Wiki sooo......
"By 1915 there were 4,259 oil burning steam locomotives in the United States, which represented 6.5% of all the locomotives then in service.[13]​ Most oil burners were operated in areas west of the Mississippi where oil was abundant.[13]​ American usage of oil burning steam locomotives peaked in 1945 when they were responsible for around 20% of all the fuel consumed (measured by energy content) during rail freight operations."
The last steam railroads in the East were actually coal hauling railroads. Buying oil to power engines hauling 100+ car plus coal trains?
Sometimes as a technology is introduced or is fading out the supply of accessories/spare parts is a problem. The last two big US steam railroads could actually make their own locomotives in the company shops. They could not (or it was too expensive) to make the air pumps, water pumps and other boiler accessories after the original specialty manufacturers closed down or went on to make other things.

Like a lot of other things, the Nazi's didn't do very good long term planning. They didn't plan on needed a variety of different fuels/energy sources for transportation. Or at least mobile transportation in the form of trucks/vehicles for an army that got very far from railroads/rivers/canals.

Just like in finally sunk in during WW I, you can't conscript too many horses/draft animals to army before you can't grow enough food for the army and factory workers. Once you have started using trucks for commercial transport you can't conscript more than certain percentage of trucks into the army without clogging up your domestic/war economy and production.

It turns out that the Germans, planned or unplanned, were stuck with dual diesel/petrol supply problem for their trucks/military vehicles. They had captured around 64,000 British vehicles by the end of the BoF (20,000 of them motorcycles). The use of French trucks was in the tens of thousands. However the French production after the surrender was a fraction of what the Germans had hoped. Not helped by sabotage, British air raids, work by the resistance (arson), etc. French domestic auto and truck production in the 1930s had been higher than Germany. Turns out the Germany 'plan' of taking over other countries and getting anywhere near the production/loot/profit as war spoils didn't work very well.

German use of steam trucks in Germany and of using wood gas producing equipment in 1940-41 could have shaved off a few percent here and there so more liquid fuel could have been sent to the combat areas.
A combat forces fuel plan vs domestic fuel plan in 1938-40 might have been useful, waiting until 1942 or later is way too late. It is like running after the passenger train that has left the platform and is already doing 30kph down the track.

 

[tomo pauk]

Like a lot of other things, the Nazi's didn't do very good long term planning.

Long term planing of the German logistics - fuel, ammo, spare parts, usage of captured stuff (both finished products and factories), distribution of materials (who gets the fancy alloys, who will have to contend with steel, wood and canvas - granted, that is mostly about LW), engines manufacturing and allocation (from what the cars and trucks get, to the tanks and aircraft) - is probably a material for several threads, both what-if and 'normal'.

 

[marathag]

Steamers can be used on the theaters away from the very harsh winters

Not a problem.

Running small steamers in cold is easier for the crew than large ones. fewer lines to blow clear at the end of the day.

So if the Heer planed on Steam locomotives working on the Eastern Front, so could the small ones.

I'm surprised at your requirement for a driver on each pair/ riding on one; we drove 2 pairs from the comfort of the wagon seat.

Guncrew had to go along with the Cannon, after all Non combat situations, not as necessary

European farms are small, so it is very difficult for individual farmers to afford a traction engine and the fuel to power it...

That's why the People's Prime Mover would be fine with 8hp Steam, that would be about the same utility as a 20hp Oliver 60 row crop that ran on kerosene that could do a two bottom plow with ideal soil, a single with heavier.

With the acres freed up from not needing Fodder, they sell more cash crops to buy subsidized coal.
And the Tractor only 'Eats' when working, unlike horses.

It's a better deal than the local existing Lanz kerosene tractors, too, in not need the refined fuel.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I would like to some numbers for this. The Germans made a lot of trucks that could be diesel powered. Most also had a petrol engined model. Production was split how? Many types of trucks had 4 wheel drive models also, but those were usually a fraction of total production. Total production of large German trucks was in the thousands. The smaller trucks were in the tens of thousands, The US was making large trucks by the tens of thousands and 'smaller' trucks by the hundreds of thousands. Canada made something like over 600,000 motor vehicles.
I would also note that diesel engines in 1930s and 40s were not easy to start in cold weather, or sometimes to even keep running. The Diesel Soviet tanks used compressed air for starting. I have used small diesel auxiliary engines in Firetrucks that used an electric heating element in the intake to warm the air in the manifold/intake system before you engaged the starter motor. Once the engine fired you let go of the heater switch (and this was sometimes in the heated truck bay.) Basically Petrol will give off flammable vapors over 40 degrees below zero (both scales), not many but some. You have to be closer to 100 degrees F (37 degrees C) above freezing for diesel fuel to give off flammable vapors. There are ways to warm the fuel (or air) and some diesels used either sprayed into the intake to start in cold weather (this may have been post war?). This one reason that truckers will just let the engine run while parked. My department's fire trucks were kept in heated bays (at least high 60s F) in New England.
You can solve a lot of problems, but if you need a lot of trucks in a hurry and you can get petrol engined ones that don't require as much work to operate in cold weather you may want to think about that aspect.

The best summary I can find:

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: Motor Vehicle Industry Report

As I noted the heavy trucks were all diesel. As far as I know the light trucks were all petrol. The 3 ton truck get tricky. Opel and Ford used petrol, Mercedes and Borgward used diesel. Opel was the largest producer but determining how many went to the front line and how many stayed on the home front is difficult. According to John Milson in "German Military Transport of World War Two" Opel built 27,000 A type (4x4) and 70,000 B type (4x2) during the war. Accurate numbers for individuals manufactures are difficult to find, I guesstimate about 1/3 of the front line 3 ton trucks had diesel engines.
The RSO was originally petrol but switched to diesel.

 

[bf109xxl]

I suspect they had an idea that Fischer-Tropsch could be more efficient. However, the Bergius process was invented a decade earlier than FT (1913 vs 1925), so it wouldn't surprise me if they thought FT was still too immature when they made the decision to start building large scale synthetic fuel infrastructure?

Only the Bergius process allowed the production of aviation gasoline, although some fractions from the Fischer-Tropsch process could be used in the production of aviation gasoline as additives.

 

[Shortround6]

The best summary I can find:

Thank you.

 

[GrauGeist]

I believe the main point here, is if you intend to start a global war, plan ahead.

Hitler was planning on bluffing his way into a short war that would cow the potential adversaries into allowing him to have relative "wiggle room" with his domestic economy.

That theory looked good on paper, but when Britain did not fold AND he attacked the Soviet Union, he ended up taxing his manufacturing's ability to meet the needs of his military.

 

[yulzari]

I believe the main point here, is if you intend to start a global war, plan ahead.

Hitler was planning on bluffing his way into a short war that would cow the potential adversaries into allowing him to have relative "wiggle room" with his domestic economy.

That theory looked good on paper, but when Britain did not fold AND he attacked the Soviet Union, he ended up taxing his manufacturing's ability to meet the needs of his military.

Exactly. 1940 was the opportunity to consolidate the gains with a white peace. Mussolini is a nuisance in Africa so perhaps turn on Italy instead of the Soviet Union and simplify the situation.

 

[tomo pauk]

Exactly. 1940 was the opportunity to consolidate the gains with a white peace. Mussolini is a nuisance in Africa so perhaps turn on Italy instead of the Soviet Union and simplify the situation.

Germany delaying the attack against the Soviet Union until a workable peace is achieved with the UK would've made them a far greater threat to the UK, and a far tougher nut to crack once the war is on vs. the USA.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The best summary I can find:

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: Motor Vehicle Industry Report

View attachment 812597
As I noted the heavy trucks were all diesel. As far as I know the light trucks were all petrol. The 3 ton truck get tricky. Opel and Ford used petrol, Mercedes and Borgward used diesel. Opel was the largest producer but determining how many went to the front line and how many stayed on the home front is difficult. According to John Milson in "German Military Transport of World War Two" Opel built 27,000 A type (4x4) and 70,000 B type (4x2) during the war. Accurate numbers for individuals manufactures are difficult to find, I guesstimate about 1/3 of the front line 3 ton trucks had diesel engines.
The RSO was originally petrol but switched to diesel.

Correction: Of the 1.5 ton trucks Borgward and Mercedes used diesels, although there were some petrol while Opel and Steyer used petrol. Milsom states the Phanomen as using diesels while other sources state petrol. Again specific production by manufacturer is difficult to find.
The main point is the the Germans had an awful lot of diesel trucks and they did use them in front line service including Russia. Here's a couple of interesting sites about German military vehicles:

Engines of the Wehrmacht in WW2

www.o5m6.de

Homepage english

 

[GrauGeist]

Germany delaying the attack against the Soviet Union until a workable peace is achieved with the UK would've made them a far greater threat to the UK, and a far tougher nut to crack once the war is on vs. the USA.

Italy's folly in Abyssinia and greater East Africa in the mid/late 30's should have been a warning sign to Hitler.

Avoiding involvement in North Africa would have saved Germany a huge amount of men, equipment and supplies which would have otherwise reinforced European positions as well as strengthened elements used to invade Soviet Russia.

Holding off on opening the Eastern Front would have also bought time for development of equipment. Especially if Germany was able to examine Soviet armor (as an "Ally") early on.

 

[tomo pauk]

Avoiding involvement in North Africa would have saved Germany a huge amount of men, equipment and supplies which would have otherwise reinforced European positions as well as strengthened elements used to invade Soviet Russia.

My position: until there is a workable peace with the UK, Germany not invading the USSR works to their advantage. If Germany needs 2 years of warfare against the UK to achieve that condition, so be it. If they need 5 years, so be it.

 

[z42]

Tooze's Wages of Destruction contains an explanation of how the mad hatred of 'World Jewry', combined with the economic issues (rate of growth / speed of armaments production compared to the other side, in particular), drove Germany into a national catastrophe.

Barbarossa was planned to quickly knock out the USSR, so that the German economy could be fully oriented towards a conflict with the UK&US, as well as give Germany more resources to use. The longer they waited, the more the industrial capacity of the Allies would turn the table in their favor. And given the success of the German Army in France, what could possibly go wrong? That is, the sooner they attack the better.

 

[tomo pauk]

Barbarossa was planned to quickly knock out the USSR, so that the German economy could be fully oriented towards a conflict with the UK&US, as well as give Germany more resources to use. The longer they waited, the more the industrial capacity of the Allies would turn the table in their favor. And given the success of the German Army in France, what could possibly go wrong? That is, the sooner they attack the better.

There were no Allies between Summer of 1940 and Summer of 1941.
A good, hard look at the geography charts, and comparing distances in the West vs. in the East should've given the German planers a pause. Considering the enemy weak was known as 'underestimating the opponent', a thing that was known for centuries, and that bit the Nazi leadership in their rear end already by Autumn of 1940.

 

[z42]

There were no Allies between Summer of 1940 and Summer of 1941.

Not formally, but the US was increasingly helping the UK, and given the scale of it's own rearmament it was but a question of time when it would fully enter the war.

I recommend the above mentioned book to explain the logic from an economic perspective.

 

[bf109xxl]

There were no Allies between Summer of 1940 and Summer of 1941.
A good, hard look at the geography charts, and comparing distances in the West vs. in the East should've given the German planers a pause. Considering the enemy weak was known as 'underestimating the opponent', a thing that was known for centuries, and that bit the Nazi leadership in their rear end already by Autumn of 1940.

The Reich vitally needs the resources of the USSR - it cannot wait five years or even two years. And the USSR will rearm and reorganize the army by the summer of 1942, after which the probability of its entry on the side of Britain will exponentially increase every month. It will enter the war with a fully mobilized army on its own conditions, while the qualitative superiority of the Germans will not have such a catastrophic effect. Yes, the Soviets would suffer heavy losses, but in the end it would cost them far fewer sacrifices.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not formally, but the US was increasingly helping the UK, and given the scale of it's own rearmament it was but a question of time when it would fully enter the war.

Agree with that.
However, expecting that a huge country will be defeated when it is convenient for someone is/was wishful thinking.

I recommend the above mentioned book to explain the logic from an economic perspective.

Economic advantages will need to wait until the militaries say the final word, while the economic disadvantages are put to the test.