German logistics, purchase programs and war booty, reality and alternatives 1935-43

[z42]

A far better proposition that hauling stuff with horse-drawn carts, or wait if and when the next supply of gasoline or diesel will arrive, so the trucks can start moving again. Note that price of fuel for steam machines ranged between 'low' and 'free'.

The big advantage of horses at the time was that, well, they existed. With the flick of a pen, the army suddenly had a million horses at it's disposal. A similarly large pool of trucks, be they steam or petroleum fueled, wasn't available to be requisitioned.

As for how the steam tractors can be used in agriculture - a choice between a) producing more food and b) being stingy with the borders of the plots is an easy one in an non-democratic society. And there is no onption a) in the occupied lands.

Even in an authoritarian regime, the regime can't do whatever. The regime has to be careful to not piss off it's power base too much. The Nazi regime also had some kind of ideological fascination with small-scale farming where the ideal "real" German was a family farmer. See Blut und Boden (blood and soil). Agricultural mechanization and the requirement for large-scale farm consolidation didn't mix very well with this idea.

Insisting on just the best stuff - gasoline and diesel power - was a bad move for Germany of the 1930s. They were no USA, not even USSR wrt. the fuel availability. Steam, started by mid 1930s, is a one way to alleviate the fuel problems.

Yes, kind of.

tl;dr: Would it have been possible to create a modern industrial economy without relying on imported petroleum with 1930'ies technology? Yes, to some extent it would have, I think. Was it realistically possible to do starting in the mid-1930'ies and be in some substantial way done by the time the historical WWII breaks out, while at the same time industry is running red hot with the rearmament? No.

So, for a kind of thought experiment. Germany doesn't have petroleum in significant quantities, but it does have coal. Mountains of it, particularly lignite. However, coal mining is labor intensive, and back breaking work. Not as labor intensive as cutting firewood, but still. Solution: Mechanization of mining. Bucket wheel excavators were starting to be used in the 1920'ies for surface mining, particularly lignite. And for underground mining of higher coal grades (needed for steel production), e.g. mechanized longwall mining (with shearers and conveyor belts) was already being used at some scale at the time.

Ok, so now we have near unlimited amounts of coal. What then? Lignite, in particular is troublesome, the high moisture and ash content can create combustion instability, and even if that is solved you need a large fire grating to generate the same power as possible with a much smaller fire if using better quality coal. Lignite is also kind of soft and crumbly so hard to handle. The solution is adoption of pulverized coal technology. The small particles have large surface area and burn much faster and you can make do with a smaller boiler. The pulverizing process also drives out a lot of the moisture, improving efficiency. Alternatively, instead of burning the pulverized coal immediately, it can be pressed into briquettes which can be used in places where equipment for handling pulverized coal directly is too cumbersome (the advantage over straight lignite is the lower moisture content, and that the briquettes aren't as crumbly as lignite so easier to handle). Finally, lignite can also be used in the production of town gas, providing a cheap and convenient source of heat for cooking and other heating like building heating and some industrial uses as well. The coal gasification also provides various byproducts that can be used as feedstocks by the chemical industry.

So what about various vehicles, then?

• Liquid fuels produced from coal (Bergius and Fischer-Tropsch) were high quality, but very expensive. Except for the industry involved in the production of these fuels, German industrialists were actually opposed to the entire program, as they saw that there was no viable path to making these fuels anywhere close to cost competitive with imported petroleum. So let's reserve these for when they are absolutely required, like aviation and military use.
• Steam trucks and tractors, yes they did exist, but there's probably reasons why they never became particularly successful. Steam is a fickle master, it works well when there's professionals handling it, but small scale usage by amateurs is low efficiency and a recipe for boiler explosions.
• Wood/Coal gas generators is maybe a more appropriate technology for vehicles like trucks and tractors? Yes, they are cumbersome compared to a petrol engine (but less so than steam?), but at least fuel is available and cheap. Even more so if you can make it work with the above mentioned lignite briquettes. Also there's no high pressures involved, so the gasification equipment can be built from cheap sheet metal. I understand the fuel efficiency is in the same ballpark as for small steam engines, maybe even slightly better. Another advantage of the gas generator path vs steam is that in peacetime, depending on the foreign exchange situation etc. vehicles can relatively easily be converted between petrol and gas generator power. And in wartime, vehicles can flexibly be moved between frontline duty using (synthetic) liquid fuels, and rear area duty using the gas generators.
• For situations where steam is appropriate, by all means use it. Electrical power plants using lignite and powdered coal is a proven technology used to this day. Also locomotives and ships. Thus build out the rail network, and canal and coastal shipping (instead of the autobahns, say). Germany did have some of their standard locomotives converted to use powdered coal which apparently worked decent enough that they remained in use after WWII. This could allow using the cheap and plentiful lignite for transportation purposes.
• In cities, build out electrical tramways, reducing the need for buses and private cars. Heck, why not have 'cargo trams' too, for moving around things like food and products from light industry in the cities.
• (Another advantage of building rail and water based transportation is the reduced requirement for rubber, another product that had to be either imported or produced synthetically at some expense.)

 

[tomo pauk]

The big advantage of horses at the time was that, well, they existed. With the flick of a pen, the army suddenly had a million horses at it's disposal. A similarly large pool of trucks, be they steam or petroleum fueled, wasn't available to be requisitioned.

Fair enough.

Even in an authoritarian regime, the regime can't do whatever. The regime has to be careful to not piss off it's power base too much. The Nazi regime also had some kind of ideological fascination with small-scale farming where the ideal "real" German was a family farmer. See Blut und Boden (blood and soil). Agricultural mechanization and the requirement for large-scale farm consolidation didn't mix very well with this idea.

They can 'sell' the idea of joint ownership of an expensive machine; after all, Nazis have had the term 'socialist' as part of their name.
Once there is captured arable land to be used, not even this needs to be trumpeted.

tl;dr: Would it have been possible to create a modern industrial economy without relying on imported petroleum with 1930'ies technology? Yes, to some extent it would have, I think. Was it realistically possible to do starting in the mid-1930'ies and be in some substantial way done by the time the historical WWII breaks out, while at the same time industry is running red hot with the rearmament? No.

I agree with the notion that it would've been impossible for Germany to go all-in without the imported petroleum.
What was possible was to find the ways to be less dependent on the imports.

Ok, so now we have near unlimited amounts of coal. What then? Lignite, in particular is troublesome, the high moisture and ash content can create combustion instability, and even if that is solved you need a large fire grating to generate the same power as possible with a much smaller fire if using better quality coal. Lignite is also kind of soft and crumbly so hard to handle. The solution is adoption of pulverized coal technology. The small particles have large surface area and burn much faster and you can make do with a smaller boiler. The pulverizing process also drives out a lot of the moisture, improving efficiency. Alternatively, instead of burning the pulverized coal immediately, it can be pressed into briquettes which can be used in places where equipment for handling pulverized coal directly is too cumbersome (the advantage over straight lignite is the lower moisture content, and that the briquettes aren't as crumbly as lignite so easier to handle). Finally, lignite can also be used in the production of town gas, providing a cheap and convenient source of heat for cooking and other heating like building heating and some industrial uses as well. The coal gasification also provides various byproducts that can be used as feedstocks by the chemical industry.

The coal slurry seems to be a thing before 20th century. Arriving at something close to the coal-water slurry fuel might've been interesting to fuel the internal combustion engines, like the big diesels. The ICE have the advantage of the far better efficiency than the external-combustion engines like the steam engines. Unlike the coal dust, the coal slurry is not an explosion hazard. Unlike the actual coal, it can be easily transported and distributed ( via help of gravity of by the pumps) to both the big and small machines.

Using the waste heat from the steel and other industry might've helped with reducing the water content of the lignite.

Liquid fuels produced from coal (Bergius and Fischer-Tropsch) were high quality, but very expensive. Except for the industry involved in the production of these fuels, German industrialists were actually opposed to the entire program, as they saw that there was no viable path to making these fuels anywhere close to cost competitive with imported petroleum. So let's reserve these for when they are absolutely required, like aviation and military use.

Agreed.
Not wasting a lot of money, manpower, energy and steel on the Autobahn project could've been a way to have more of the syn fuels' facilities.

Steam trucks and tractors, yes they did exist, but there's probably reasons why they never became particularly successful. Steam is a fickle master, it works well when there's professionals handling it, but small scale usage by amateurs is low efficiency and a recipe for boiler explosions.

Boiler explosions should've been reasonably preventable by introducing the over-pressure valves, as well as with training of the opeartors. In the UK, the 'attack' from the ICE trucks using the cheap & available gas, was far more of a thing than in Germany trying to became ever less dependent on import of everything.

Wood/Coal gas generators is maybe a more appropriate technology for vehicles like trucks and tractors? Yes, they are cumbersome compared to a petrol engine (but less so than steam?), but at least fuel is available and cheap. Even more so if you can make it work with the above mentioned lignite briquettes. Also there's no high pressures involved, so the gasification equipment can be built from cheap sheet metal. I understand the fuel efficiency is in the same ballpark as for small steam engines, maybe even slightly better. Another advantage of the gas generator path vs steam is that in peacetime, depending on the foreign exchange situation etc. vehicles can relatively easily be converted between petrol and gas generator power. And in wartime, vehicles can flexibly be moved between frontline duty using (synthetic) liquid fuels, and rear area duty using the gas generators.

Agreed.

For situations where steam is appropriate, by all means use it. Electrical power plants using lignite and powdered coal is a proven technology used to this day. Also locomotives and ships. Thus build out the rail network, and canal and coastal shipping (instead of the autobahns, say). Germany did have some of their standard locomotives converted to use powdered coal which apparently worked decent enough that they remained in use after WWII. This could allow using the cheap and plentiful lignite for transportation purposes.

Every time a few kg of coal is used, there is a liter of gas not needed. So go ahead with steam where it can work.

• In cities, build out electrical tramways, reducing the need for buses and private cars. Heck, why not have 'cargo trams' too, for moving around things like food and products from light industry in the cities.
• (Another advantage of building rail and water based transportation is the reduced requirement for rubber, another product that had to be either imported or produced synthetically at some expense.)

Agreed.

 

[ThomasP]

re coal-slurry fueled engines

Unfortunately, coal-slurry fuel is simply too abrasive for any kind of long term use in any ICE or turbine engine. The problems with abrasion of the fuel pumps and injectors have been found to be insurmountable - even with today's materials and technology.

Somewhere on the internet (maybe the DTIC site?) there is a study of using coal dust and/or coal slurry fuels to power the engine types available over the last 100 years or so. They found that the only practical use would be for more-or-less single-use engines such as those in torpedoes and missiles, either in ICE/turbine engines or pulse jets. Even here, though, the relatively slow energy release of the fuels studied kept the overall force content of the fuel relatively low.

 

[Shortround6]

The military needs liquid fuel. At least once the military starts entertaining any idea of attacking Russia.

Now how do the Germans ban/discourage the use of oil/gasoline for private use or commercial/industrial/agriculture use in peace time?
Taxes on fuel types?
Lignite was good for powerplants. Trains of lignite left the mine and traveled to the powerplant/s with no stops or handling in-between.
But lignite was not very good for other uses. As noted earlier many rail locomotives that were called lignite using actually used semi-bituminous.
Lignite was bulky per 10,000 Btus and it was heavy. A train needed more frequent fuel stops and/or much larger tender.
Using it in canal boats or Rhine river boats cuts into cargo capacity.
Government has to figure out a way to make better fuels uneconomic.
Government also has to figure out a way to make personal automobiles more expensive and/or unpatriotic.
Of course that has the side effect of reducing the factory capability/capacity for building military trucks when the army wants military trucks.
Steam power with solid fuels means time taking to start up (raise steam) at the start of a work shift or start of a journey.
Boiler explosions can come from two basic causes. Plain over pressure which was pretty much solved by pressure release valves by the 1830s/40s and low water.
Low water caused several things to happen at once. Low water meant that the volume of water was small which meant that the temperature (evaporation) was higher, and that parts of the boiler that normally had water covering them did not which lead to the part/s getting very hot and failing. This condition could exceed the safety valve's ability to vent the excess pressure. Boilers in trucks and tractors often operated while tipped further than rail locomotives or ships which could expose parts of the crown sheet to high temperatures.
Steam can be rather unforgiving of mistakes.
The US Stanley Steamer cars did a lot of things right but they used liquid fuel and a small boiler of good worksmanship and materials. They also used a lot ball bearings in the engine.
Trying to use their design in trucks may not have worked well, especially using poor coal.
In the US there were some rail engines that used wood. Almost always for railroads that were built to harvest lumber. They weren't going very far per trip.
Add for good performance they used dry wood, or at least a mixture of dry and green wood. Green wood doesn't burn well, and you can wind up with a lot of burning cresote in the flues and stack.
I was a firefighter starting in the mid 70s (last oil crisis) and lot of people tried to burn wood to heat their houses without the knowledge that their parents or grandparents had. A lot of chimney fires. Poor wood, lack of chimney cleaning and so one. In the 1930s most people had a better idea of what was needed.
Wood worked but from the economy aspect you needed your own wood source (land with suitable wood on it), way of getting wood to the house/structure, way to cut (1970s chainsaw). Paying for wood sourced somewhere else cut and hauled by other people didn't save much money.
Government tax incentives?

 

[Shortround6]

Some rather random notes on German fuel.
The Germans could have done a lot better with alternative fuels. But they needed to start in the 1920s and there really wasn't a demand in 1920s.
Some alternatives were useful for local/low powered engines.
Some were scalable without a lot of trouble, but some were not.
Lignite is all over the place depending on the time scale, proximity to lignite mines and how it was to be used ( dig it up, dry it a bit and burn it close to the mine).
It had problems with outdoor storage and spontaneous combustion. Or more so than bituminous coal which was not problem free.

The Fischer–Tropsch process didn't exist before 1925 and while it was important for Germany in 1930s it was also capital intensive and needed several steps and/or several different products to become commercially viable. Coming down heavy on the Fischer–Tropsch process in 1928 may have been a huge gamble.

One source claims that there were 86 car makers in Germany in the 1920s (not all existed at the same time) but only 12 survived the great depression.
Steam trains were both fuel inefficient and labor intensive when dealing with small loads. Electric trains required less manpower per train but more manpower to maintain the wiring in addition to the tracks.
Electric trains in the US were only used in small areas under special conditions. Like into and out of NY City (by law) and by extension on popular routes into/out of New York to avoid changing locomotives a few miles outside of New York proper. Electric locomotives were used in a number of tunnels to avoid killing the crews.
Germany may have been a better market with the closer spaced cities and with lignite being a decent fuel for electric power stations.
In a straight line it is almost the same distance from NY to Chicago (the great lakes get in the way) as it is from Brussels to Warsaw.
US requirements are different than German requirements.

Wiki claims that the 1.7liter Mercedes engine using the 1936 and later 170 series cars that gave 37hp dropped to 22 hp when fitted with a wood gas generator. Spare tire was relocated to the roof to make room for the wood gas generator. I guess it beats walking but driving around in traffic with a burning wood fire in the trunk?
22 hp small delivery truck?
Some alternative fuels meant that you had to build more chassis.

 

[tomo pauk]

Government has to figure out a way to make better fuels uneconomic.
Government also has to figure out a way to make personal automobiles more expensive and/or unpatriotic.
Of course that has the side effect of reducing the factory capability/capacity for building military trucks when the army wants military trucks.

Germans can also try with the ethanol fuels. Shortcoming of the ethanol vs. gasoline is that they have lower energy per kg of fuel vs. gasoline. Advantage of ethanol is that their resistance to knock is far greater than what even the 87 oct fuel can do, let alone the under 80 oct fuel types - the compression ratio can be increased, that is beneficial to the fuel economy. Every car that runs on alcohol fuel is one car less that uses (mostly imported) gasoline.
The biodiesel - fuel for diesel engines that comes from the edible oils - is also worth a look.
A small tractor, suitable for the small farms, can be made around 1- or 2-cylinder engine, removing the need to own, feed and care for a pair of horses. A tractor can be easily operated by one person, even a boy or an old man can do it well. Where I come from (Dalmatian hinterland, between Adriatic and Bosnia), it was common until 21st century that young boys drive tractors before they were driving scooters/motorcycles. My grandfather was using his tractor to plow and tow well into his seventies. It was not uncommon that women drive tractors, regardless whether there is a man of the house around; not needing the drivers licence was a boon.

Both of these fuels will require that extra land is devoted to the agricultural production, a thing made easier with the requirement for the fodder to be grown being lower since the horses can go now. Once Germany is in conquering phase, there are heaps of excellent arable land between Atlantic and Russia proper.

The Fischer–Tropsch process didn't exist before 1925 and while it was important for Germany in 1930s it was also capital intensive and needed several steps and/or several different products to become commercially viable. Coming down heavy on the Fischer–Tropsch process in 1928 may have been a huge gamble.

Germany will need to say goodbye to some things in order to have some other things. Not going with Autobahn project is not my idea, but it is idea that makes sense, since it saves them a lot. Another idea might've been that the probe drilling gets the greater attention, so more of the natural oil can be found.

But again, there is no single silver bullet here - unless Germany starts exploring the alternative fuel and fuel sources before they start massing the airforce and other war machines, they are up the creek without the paddle.

 

[Shortround6]

I have wondered if some countries tried to jump too far/fast into motorization.
I am not saying keep the horses.
But going from horses to 70-80kph trucks and military cars may have been too much.
Horse Artillery was good for about 3mph(5kph). A lot depends on condition of roads, terrain (hills) and the condition of the horses and it was generally considered that a march per day of 15-25 miles (25-40kilometers) was average.
Small tractors, as you have mentioned, don't need to be watered or fed several times per day. They don't need to be rested like horses and while they may break down they can run for days usually, unlike horses. A small tractor that can tow a 2 ton load at 10-12kph can more than double the speed of a horse drawn unit over several weeks,
Problem here is that the men cannot march on foot at that speed.
Perhaps using small trucks/tractors that can move at 20kph will allow for at least 3 times the movement of foot troops or horse drawn artillery and be cheaper to buy and provide fuel for than the faster trucks? Use trailers to transport the infantry and supplies?
There may be a lot wrong with this but getting rid of the horses and their need for water, fodder and care while improving mobility, even if not 60kph on good roads might have been worthwhile.

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps using small trucks/tractors that can move at 20kph will allow for at least 3 times the movement of foot troops or horse drawn artillery and be cheaper to buy and provide fuel for than the faster trucks? Use trailers to transport the infantry and supplies?

French were trying to do something like that with their UE machines - these were simple tracked tractors, any payload was being towed by the trailers. While not an ideal solution, the price of the tractor + trailer was probably substantially lower than it will be for a German halftrack with similar carrying capacity.

Granted, an agricultural tractor will not be able to do what the UE did, but it should be far better in towing stuff than a horse team.

There is nothing preventing Germans (or other people) to hitch the trailer behind a tank, so 5-10 infantrymen can travel a lot faster to the place of interest to help the tanks out when needed. Infantry is also less tired and with better morale. It also beats the Soviet 'tank desant' by a country mile when it is about the safety of infantry. Germans did try with the tank-towed sleds for the accompanying infantry, but the trailers are a much better solution IMO. The extra fuel, ammo and spare parts can be also towed in the trailer.

 

[z42]

When talking about conscripting a substantial portion of the population, it's perhaps more about what the civilian economy has available that can be requisitioned, than what is "optimal". Even today, countries with large conscription based armies cannot afford to have every infantryman ride in an APC, let alone an IFV.

If the civilian economy still uses a lot of horses for agriculture and transportation, that's what the army will end up with as well. If agriculture and transportation have been mechanized, there's a large pool of tractors and trucks that the army can take. Slap some matte green paint on it and off you go. And yes, a tractor is probably decently well suited to pulling a trailer with infantry, or a cannon, over poor roads.

 

[z42]

Small tractors, as you have mentioned, don't need to be watered or fed several times per day. They don't need to be rested like horses and while they may break down they can run for days usually, unlike horses. A small tractor that can tow a 2 ton load at 10-12kph can more than double the speed of a horse drawn unit over several weeks,
Problem here is that the men cannot march on foot at that speed.
Perhaps using small trucks/tractors that can move at 20kph will allow for at least 3 times the movement of foot troops or horse drawn artillery and be cheaper to buy and provide fuel for than the faster trucks? Use trailers to transport the infantry and supplies?
There may be a lot wrong with this but getting rid of the horses and their need for water, fodder and care while improving mobility, even if not 60kph on good roads might have been worthwhile.

For a cheap solution, give the infantrymen bicycles, and use the tractors to carry equipment.

 

[yulzari]

French were trying to do something like that with their UE machines - these were simple tracked tractors, any payload was being towed by the trailers. While not an ideal solution, the price of the tractor + trailer was probably substantially lower than it will be for a German halftrack with similar carrying capacity.

Granted, an agricultural tractor will not be able to do what the UE did, but it should be far better in towing stuff than a horse team.

There is nothing preventing Germans (or other people) to hitch the trailer behind a tank, so 5-10 infantrymen can travel a lot faster to the place of interest to help the tanks out when needed. Infantry is also less tired and with better morale. It also beats the Soviet 'tank desant' by a country mile when it is about the safety of infantry. Germans did try with the tank-towed sleds for the accompanying infantry, but the trailers are a much better solution IMO. The extra fuel, ammo and spare parts can be also towed in the trailer.

The trouble with a trailer for a tank is that either the tank is just being used as a tractor (like the Crusader in NW Europe) which is perhaps a use for obsolete tanks, a very maintenance heavy and thirsty tractor, or the tank is using it in an operational role and in that it runs into the same issue as bicycle infantry. Once you detach the trailer to deploy the infantry you have to eventually stop any advance and return to pick them up and rendezvous with the infantry again. Unlike mounted infantry who leave the horses with horse holders (and thus suffer a 25% reduction in active troops) the pile of discarded bicycles cannot be brought forward again under their own power in sets of four like horses. The Soviet solution was tank riders which has no trailers to be recovered post action or the richer British/Canadian solution of Kangaroo tanks which can keep up with the tanks.

An minor lateral solution was suggested following the 1914 BEF experience, in which many troops were lost to capture simply because of poorly fitted boots or particularly the re embodied Reserve troops who were unused to extensive marching in army boots. These assorted foot troubles led to the suggestions that better quality boots, fitting and maintenance would be a worthwhile investment and peacetime troops leaving the service and joining the reserves should be given a regular supply of free (better) army boots to wear in civilian life. It is no more than keeping reserve equipment in good order fit for swift issue. Even in my 1970/80s British army service the boots were utter crap compared to good civilian ones and I usually wore my own purchase civilian boots rather than the 'Boots DMS' which proved so bad in the Falklands war that the troops were stealing Argentine boots off POWs in exchange for their own DMS and forced the MOD to actually look to spending more on better boots. It was difficult for the MOD to argue that decent boots were too expensive when Argentina could afford excellent boots for their soldiers and tens of thousands of pounds were spent sending each soldier to the Falklands from the other side of the globe and then, in effect, discarding many from foot troubles with constant cold and wet feet. The same issues apply to the socks too. British army socks of the time were totally unsuitable for operations too. British infantry of that time were spending significant amounts of their own money on buying their own better kit. I think that, in my 2nd engagement the only thing I wore that the Queen gave me was the beret, except on a formal parade.

Spending resources on good kit for the individual infantry soldier is a wise investment and, overall, possibly a better one than tank trailers. An old acquaintance from a Ukrainian club in the English Midlands was called up for the Red Amry in the Great Patriotic War and literally walked from Moscow to Berlin in all weathers.

The British army worked supplies forward to the regimental and company level in lorries, then forward to the active front line in Universal Carriers which, like the Renault UE, were not fit to accompany tanks under fire. Universal carriers also were capable of towing trailers but these were wheeled not tracked like the UE trailers.

 

[z42]

In the winter it can look like this; a tracked vehicle pulling troops on skis.

 

[tomo pauk]

The trouble with a trailer for a tank is that either the tank is just being used as a tractor (like the Crusader in NW Europe) which is perhaps a use for obsolete tanks, a very maintenance heavy and thirsty tractor, or the tank is using it in an operational role and in that it runs into the same issue as bicycle infantry. Once you detach the trailer to deploy the infantry you have to eventually stop any advance and return to pick them up and rendezvous with the infantry again. Unlike mounted infantry who leave the horses with horse holders (and thus suffer a 25% reduction in active troops) the pile of discarded bicycles cannot be brought forward again under their own power in sets of four like horses. The Soviet solution was tank riders which has no trailers to be recovered post action or the richer British/Canadian solution of Kangaroo tanks which can keep up with the tanks.

You have already paid for the tank and it's maintenance. Hitching a trailer is a way to have the infantry support on-hand, on-time and on-dime. The trailers detached just before the frontline can be daisy-chained and brought to the original users once the battle is ended, for further use. Or, the trailers can be used by other vehicles in order to bring on the supplies fast.
As for the bicycles that need to rendezvous with the infantry - a truck can carry dozens of them.

The Soviet solution was risking men instead of using material - not something advisable for Germans, bar the borderline and urgent instances. Yes, the APCs are the best, if one a) can make a lot of them, and b) can fuel them (again, the Axis is bad here).

 

[Shortround6]

I may have jumped motorization a bit myself.
British were the first army to "motorize" which was easier for the British as they had a very, very small army at the time.
But the British never got the infantry off their feet, officially.
Neither did the US Army in WW II despite their plethora of trucks.
The US had truck companies and truck battalions which they assigned "as needed" for different operations to infantry units.
Not to say that many armies didn't experiment with different truck types all during the 20s and 30s.

Tank use as tow vehicles changed during the war in some armies. But I don't think most armies of the 1930s were "planning" on using tanks as tow vehicles. A number of armies were buying large trucks to move the tanks over long distances to cut down on wear and tear.

This only worked for small tanks.
Using the tanks as tow vehicles was going to increase wear and tear. What was done in war time could be different, but expedients were not what staffs were working on or at least not hard. They were working on the 'proper' trucks/tractors to be ordered when finances became available.

There are also major differences between strategic mobility and tactical mobility and even this has several levels. Using tanks to move infantry a dozen miles from a staging area to a 'start' point where they dismount is a bit different than infantry riding on tanks into battle and taking fire. We may be talking about 3 different types of mobility. Combat mobility is different thing altogether from just getting rid of the horses pulling artillery.

Different armies had different requirements. France had a large army in France but they also ordered specific vehicles for use in North Africa. What worked in France didn't work in Algeria and the desert.

This is combat supply. A 38hp engine was not enough to tow even light artillery/ammo/crew.
Tracked vehicles have great traction, they also have a much higher rolling resistance than wheeled vehicles and need more power just to move themselves.
This vehicle was sort of built to refight WW I. A way to bring ammo, food, supplies to troops in trenches/front line positions under small arms and artillery fire.

But a truck like the British Quad was not bullet proof and could not be used for combat supply.
British wanted to get rid of horses for artillery, supply (and horses don't work for combat resupply).
Now we wind up with a difference in speed protentional. Infantry (foot) didn't change speed, artillery did with motor traction, but it is hard to figure road speed to cross country speed.
Perhaps the artillery tractors were too fast but perhaps they were hoping to be able to purchase trucks for the infantry at a later date?

Getting back to the Germans, perhaps the Germans over speced a lot of their 1930s trucks and were caught making up numbers with slightly modified commercial trucks.
German auto/truck manufacturing was also not big enough to provide enough vehicles for the size of the German army even if they had enough fuel.
Of course the distances in North Africa and Russia were much longer than the distances in Poland, France and even Greece. A 1941/42 truck is different than a 1939/40 truck.

But this is ideal. Using a lot of small, low speed tractors instead of tens (hundreds?) thousands of horses might have worked to the Germans advantage. Even small tractors could replace 6-8 horses each and the supply train/trail that horses need.

 

[tomo pauk]

German auto/truck manufacturing was also not big enough to provide enough vehicles for the size of the German army even if they had enough fuel.
Of course the distances in North Africa and Russia were much longer than the distances in Poland, France and even Greece. A 1941/42 truck is different than a 1939/40 truck.

Fro the German PoV, there is a lot to be gained with dieselization of the Army.
Yes, not everything can be converted, but starting out wit the heavy vehicles, like tanks, would've been a boon. Germans figured out - albeit too late - that the diesel engine can offer 70-80% better specific fuel consumption. Like the Soviet V2 engine requiring 159 grams of diesel for each PS*hour, while the HL 230 requiring 276 grams of gasoline (these are the best values, measured after the clutch).
They can make a V6 and V12 diesel siblings, talk 275 and 550 HP, respectively, and install the smaller engine in the ~20 ton tanks, and bigger in the 30-50 ton tanks. The V6 in something like the Pz-III/-IV offers better internal volume, lower price to make than the historical 300 HP V12 gasoline engine, and far better mileage and lower susceptibility to catch fire.
Lower consumption of fuel also lessens the burden to ship all that fuel thousands of kilometers.

 

[Shortround6]

Diesels offer a real savings at idle and low speed-part throttle. Tanks spend a lot of time idling or at part throttle.

But a lot 1930s/40 diesels were either bulky or heavy for the power (or both)
Part of this was than just about all of the existing truck/boat engines in the 200-600hp range (aside from the Soviet tank engines) were built for long use. A lot of time between overhauls.
the weight of the engines in not usually the problem, bulk is.
If the engine compartment is larger to hold the diesel you have all the weight of the added armor.
For the Germans you need a new family of diesels.
This is a "what if" so we can stretch things some.

Mercedes OM 67 engine (1935-1954)

Mercedes-Benz OM 67 diesel engine Daimler Benz AG OM 67 Production period: 1935 to 1954 Manufacturer: Daimler Benz AG How it works: diesel Engine Type: R6 Valve control: OHV displacement: 7274-7413 cm 3 Fuel supply: indirect injection Power: 70-88 kW Dimensions: 780 kg Previous model: OM 5 ...

motor-car.net

has some details of the DB OM 67 series of 6cylinder truck engines used in WW II German trucks. The engines in the Henschel and Bussing-NAG trucks don't sound much different.
the Tatra engine doesn't show up until 1943.

 

[don4331]

View attachment 867260

Shows rear suspension rather well. What it does not show is that the left and right sides could operate independently. That is the right rear wheel could be the high wheel on the right side while the left rear wheel could be the low wheel as in the picture.
About 12-15 were built and they were developing a 6X6 version. What is hard to find out is the transmission information (number of gears and/or hi-low range) but the engine seems to be a Ford/Mercury flat head V-8.
I have no idea of the production capacity of the DAF factory of the time.
This walking beam rear end seems to go in and out of fashion several times through history. Brazilians were pushing hard in the 70s and 80s, maybe later?
View attachment 867261

The walking beam suspension found in Scammell and friends has a couple drawbacks:

1. It requires a rather heavy casting* on each side (in addition to a substantial axle in the center​

2. It requires 5 or more gears per side​

3. It requires relatively narrow frame rails​

4. I don't know if any offer differential between front and rear wheels - not important off road, but hard on tires on hard surfaces (if you are wanting to convince the civilian population to use your solution.​

*Scammell uses more castings to ease fabrication.​

 

[Shortround6]

4. I don't know if any offer differential between front and rear wheels - not important off road, but hard on tires on hard surfaces (if you are wanting to convince the civilian population to use your solution.

My last "ladder truck"* used a US style rear bogie. Two powered rear axles with a differential on each axle but now differential between axles. Used dual wheels on each axle.
It ate tires at a rather fearsome rate. Due to a few factors.
It was overweight, over 50,000lbs on rear bogy. Fire trucks did not have to follow DOT regulations.
It spent a lot of time in 'city' driving which means turning corners. It had a turning circle of about 93-94ft. A 100ft circle on the end of a dead-end street was not easy. The 93-94ft circle was the diameter the tires covered. Not the diameter that the front bumper and rare overhang covered.
In a tight turn the rear tires were offset about 5in from the forward tires on bogie which led to a lot of tire scrub and in fact a lot chunks taken out of the out-side tread on the tires. We often rotated the tires front to back on the bogie at around 3000 miles to equalize the wear.
*

Not my truck but close. My truck (no pump) was about 68-69,000lbs with tools/equipment in the compartments. We DID NOT take it off pavement.
It had a 450hp V8-92 turbo Detroit Diesel engine and an automatic transmission. On steep hills in town in maxed out at 30mph in 2nd gear. If you got it to sift into 3rd gear teh RPM was too low and it bogged down and you lost speed.
Rear overhand was such that one of the crew dismounted to monitor chances of striking getting into or out of parking lots or odd side streets. Standard practice was to take such changes in street level at an angle instead of strait.

British found in the mid-late 1939s that few commercial operators want to buy/use military trucks on subsidy basis. They didn't want to pay for the military standard equipment (engine/number of driven axles or suspension) and the increase running costs (fuel and tires) and the often-inconvenient operating problems. Military loading heights where higher than commercial truck beds and did not line up well with most commercial docks. This slowed loading and unloading and increased labor. A truck that was loading and unloading was not moving cargo and was not making money.
The pre WW I scheme of the army paying for horses for commercial users and calling them up for military use in time of war did not update to trucks in the 1930s.
One wonders if it would have worked Germany either?

 

[tomo pauk]

The pre WW I scheme of the army paying for horses for commercial users and calling them up for military use in time of war did not update to trucks in the 1930s.
One wonders if it would have worked Germany either?

Considering that German heavy-duty trucks were few and far between, this seems like a very good idea.

 

[MikeMeech]

The pre WW I scheme of the army paying for horses for commercial users and calling them up for military use in time of war did not update to trucks in the 1930s.
One wonders if it would have worked Germany either?

Hi
'Subsidy' schemes for trucks were in place before WW1 in Britain, France and Germany. For the British this is covered in various publications including:

Some extracts:

Also:

Some extracts:

It also has drawings of the subsidy scheme vehicles, including standardised controls:

Mike