Planes vs Trains

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Considering how much less efficient trucks are at moving cargo long distances, forcing Germany to use road vs rail transport would be a minor win for the Allies, by itself.
 
swampyankee said:
Considering how much less efficient trucks are at moving cargo long distances, forcing Germany to use road vs rail transport would be a minor win for the Allies, by itself.
Click to expand...
Worse than that, Germany had a shortage of trucks. Often the alternative was horses. Soldiers often had to march. Tanks were worn out prematurely.
 
Reluctant Poster said:
Worse than that, Germany had a shortage of trucks. Often the alternative was horses. Soldiers often had to march. Tanks were worn out prematurely.
Click to expand...

While German (Continental Europe, except the USSR, in general) trains were shorter and lighter than contemporary US trains, a train with 20 cars could easily carry 800 to 1000 tons of cargo; this would be at least 40 and probably more like 80 trucks. Each train had a crew of about 5. While there was a greater number of people involved in daily operation of the rail infrastructure, those trucks also needed quite a lot of infrastructure, but with trucks just moving the cargo around takes about ten times the people. Trucks are also more impacted by night (driving at night in blackout conditions would reduce speed over daytime by quite a lot) and adverse weather. Of course, once Allied air superiority is achieved, night and adverse weather is the only reasonably safe time to move cargo. The same would apply to the German invasion of the USSR, except that the Soviet road network is probably worse than that in Germany, so damaging Soviet railroads would be relatively more damaging to the USSR than damaging German railroads would be to Germany. It seems the Allies were more willing to accept damage to German infrastructure while moving towards Berlin than the Germans were moving away, perhaps because the Allies weren't invading as looters.
 
Several german bomber geschwader (KG) had a Staffel specialized in train busting ops. I believe they were introduced between 1942 and 43.
 
The task of repairing rail damages from allied bombing was so easy that the advance of the allies from Normandy was carried almost entirely by rail. No wait. It was carried almost entirely by road. Hmm. Maybe repairing was not so easy after all?
 
I have several family members who work on track gangs for the Santa Fe (now BNSF) here in the States. They can do astonishing things in repairing derails NOW, but in those days, the machines to do so were not available. Now, a small crew can go out and replace rails and ties in quick order. Seventy-five years ago, most of that was done by hand. Of course, the Germans had a lot of forced labor to get the work done, but they couldn't get it repaired nearly as quickly as the kids nowadays can do it.
 
Repairing single or double track on flat, solid ground is not hard, given enough man power. Repairing multiple "breaks" gets much harder as each break has to be dealt with in succession. You don't march a group of men up to a bomb crater, fill it in and bring the rails back and put them in place. You need a work train with spare rails, ties, spikes, gravel/stone plus the men.
Curves are a bit more difficult, anything needing more foundation work, like embankments/ raised roadbed will take longer and may need more equipment. As would caved in cuts. Bridges, even small ones need even more support.
Many of the rail lines suffered from multiple damaged sections in just a few miles.
The Germans also were not likely to leave working locomotives and rail cars parked in depots for the allies to use.
 

Hi All

Reference Russia and German actions against their railways, the book 'Black Cross/Red Star Volume 3' p.189, mentions that during 1942:

"Luftflotte 5's dominant task remained to sever the Lend Lease's northern route. The aerial operations against the Kirov railway, where Lend Lease goods that arrived at Murmansk were transported to the inland, must largely be regarded as a failure. This was mainly due to the Soviet ability to repair the damaged rail line in only a few hours."

It also mentions, on p.195, alongside a photo of a Ju 87 of I./StG 5, that:

"Equipped with JU 87s of the "R" long-range version, I./StG 5 was deployed against the Kirov railway throughout 1942, but with no lasting result - and definitely not worth the losses sustained to the Stukagruppe."

It appears that the Soviets could repair their railways rapidly.

Mike
 
You have to be able to overwhelm the repair capability. Every railroad had stocks of spare rails, ties, spikes, etc for repairs and routine maintenance. Some had more than others. Every railroad had work trains with flat cars holding rails and material (gondola or hopper cars for the rock) , tool cars and even, at times bunk and cook cars. There may even have been a small crane to help handle materials. larger cranes helped with derailments.
The rail network breaks down when the damage exceeds the repair capability.
Most railroads, before the war, were time sensitive. they had schedules to keep and even freight needed to be moved in a timely fashion. The more trips per month a rail car could make the more money the railroad made. Some railroads were better than others
The Germans actually got to point where they pre-positioned spare boilers at certain depots. Locomotive with shot up boiler gets towed to the shop. Large crane lifts shot-up boiler off the frame/chassis and puts the spare on (granted this could take a few days) and then the old boiler is scrapped or repaired depending on condition.

wrecking a rail system took a long concerted effort.
 
Wehrmacht could draw engines and cars by French, Dutch, Belgian, Italian (after Sept. 1943) Hungarian Railways etc. etc.
After Sept. 1943 even some (many) of the engine drivers, expecially in the domestic lines, were not Germans, a number were Italians that choose to drive an engine rather than to serve in the Repubblica Sociale Italiana Army: in this way they were somewhat "protected" and could get a meal (and, knowing my fellow countrymen, not only, in a Germany where all the men were far away on the various war fronts...).
 
Last edited:
To cut a rail line for any period of time, destroying the bridges, collapsing deep cuts, or collapsing tunnel entrances is far, far more effective than just cutting rail.
 
swampyankee said:
To cut a rail line for any period of time, destroying the bridges, collapsing deep cuts, or collapsing tunnel entrances is far, far more effective than just cutting rail.
Click to expand...


Absolutely true. Missouri, where my railroader family lives, often has floods that wash out bridge abutments, the whole roadbeds, etc. and THOSE are a lot harder to repair/replace than just simple rails and ties. They have told me some stories about the messes they have to deal with, even with the equipment used today (they never physically have to touch rails or ties any more, machines do all that.
Destroying engines and other rolling stock is tough to replace, too.
 
Not far from where I live a Railway Viaduct was hit during the May 1941 Blitz. Liverpool at the time was the main port for Britain and cutting this Viaduct cut the tonnage the port could handle almost in half. The government were told that the Viaduct could take up to a year to repair.

Goods trains rolled slowly across the repaired Viaduct 14 days later and the temporary repair lasted 5 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
11
Views
583
SaparotRob
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
800
Shortround6
S
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register