War Factories; Lack of Standardisation

That’s interesting and surprising.

I’d never really thought about this type of issue. Perhaps one take-home is that standardisation isn’t a prerequisite for coordinating well enough to win a war, and if it isn’t of paramount importance in that context, maybe it isn’t paramount in other contexts...

I.e. perhaps letting each country - or even sometimes specific industrial actors - do things according to their own strengths and customs may confer as much, or even more, advantage than standardisation, even taking into account the cost associated with coordinating across multiple standards.

Edited by Lee River

As serious modellers of WWII military vehicles have known for decades, even the 'standard design' T-34 tank had numerous variants due the constraints and vagaries of wartime production in different factories. However compared to German tank and vehicle production of the time, both the Ruskies and Yanks were able to manufacture both more and faster through adopting standardisation and building in different factories and the British war effort beat the industrial blitzes by producing pretty much standard aircraft and vehicles in different (often shadow) factories. German aircraft production rates were also behind the curve once war broke out as most of their engineers were unable to think outside the conventional box when manufacturing - plus on that score Hitler had the vision of a blind match-seller with his balaclava on backwards.

How much of that was evolution rather than lack of standardisation?

Gothic Image said

How much of that was evolution rather than lack of standardisation?

Making the same tank with four different engines at the same time makes no sense in terms of military efficiency and ease of supply. The best version was the M4A2 with the diesel engine, the petrol engined versions were very liable to catching fire if hit and were supposedly referred to as "Ronsons" after the cigarette lighter by the Germans, although their tanks also had petrol engines. The M4A2 was mostly used by the US Marine Corps.

J. Southworth said

Gothic Image said

How much of that was evolution rather than lack of standardisation?

Making the same tank with four different engines at the same time makes no sense in terms of military efficiency and ease of supply. The best version was the M4A2 with the diesel engine, the petrol engined versions were very liable to catching fire if hit and were supposedly referred to as "Ronsons" after the cigarette lighter by the Germans, although their tanks also had petrol engines. The M4A2 was mostly used by the US Marine Corps.

I would suggest that four different engines makes little difference. Most military equipment is engineered for extended peacetime use, whereas most equipment survives only for only a few days/weeks on the front line. Extensive engine repairs or swap outs are rare during a dynamic war (the tank's environment) and even a single engine type would require a sizeable logistic and engineering support. The T34 was the ideal solution as a 'throw-away' weapon. Maybe not as powerful as a Tiger, but three T34s could take out a Tiger with the loss of one T34. This may have cost you a tank crew, but they are the cheapest component in the equation.

I have witnessed field engine swap outs of Chieftains in a German farmyard. Two cranes, two 20ton Fodens with replacement engine and parts, a REME detachment with Field workshop and various domestic vehicles. In real life this would have been a couple of miles behind the FEBA and would have required at least a platoon of infantry to secure the immediate area. 

Meanwhile the battle was moving at something like 30 miles per day. Much more sensible to torch the thing and move a replacement forward.

Ken P said

J. Southworth said

Gothic Image said

How much of that was evolution rather than lack of standardisation?

Making the same tank with four different engines at the same time makes no sense in terms of military efficiency and ease of supply. The best version was the M4A2 with the diesel engine, the petrol engined versions were very liable to catching fire if hit and were supposedly referred to as "Ronsons" after the cigarette lighter by the Germans, although their tanks also had petrol engines. The M4A2 was mostly used by the US Marine Corps.

I would suggest that four different engines makes little difference. Most military equipment is engineered for extended peacetime use, whereas most equipment survives only for only a few days/weeks on the front line. Extensive engine repairs or swap outs are rare during a dynamic war (the tank's environment) and even a single engine type would require a sizeable logistic and engineering support. The T34 was the ideal solution as a 'throw-away' weapon. Maybe not as powerful as a Tiger, but three T34s could take out a Tiger with the loss of one T34. This may have cost you a tank crew, but they are the cheapest component in the equation.

I have witnessed field engine swap outs of Chieftains in a German farmyard. Two cranes, two 20ton Fodens with replacement engine and parts, a REME detachment with Field workshop and various domestic vehicles. In real life this would have been a couple of miles behind the FEBA and would have required at least a platoon of infantry to secure the immediate area. 

Meanwhile the battle was moving at something like 30 miles per day. Much more sensible to torch the thing and move a replacement forward.

There's also the question of whether there were enough of one engine type to equip the total number of vehicles.

There are, as far as I know, only two remaining running Shermans with multibank engines.  They're quite an amazing piece of engineering.

Ken P said

J. Southworth said

Gothic Image said

How much of that was evolution rather than lack of standardisation?

Making the same tank with four different engines at the same time makes no sense in terms of military efficiency and ease of supply. The best version was the M4A2 with the diesel engine, the petrol engined versions were very liable to catching fire if hit and were supposedly referred to as "Ronsons" after the cigarette lighter by the Germans, although their tanks also had petrol engines. The M4A2 was mostly used by the US Marine Corps.

I would suggest that four different engines makes little difference. Most military equipment is engineered for extended peacetime use, whereas most equipment survives only for only a few days/weeks on the front line. Extensive engine repairs or swap outs are rare during a dynamic war (the tank's environment) and even a single engine type would require a sizeable logistic and engineering support. The T34 was the ideal solution as a 'throw-away' weapon. Maybe not as powerful as a Tiger, but three T34s could take out a Tiger with the loss of one T34. This may have cost you a tank crew, but they are the cheapest component in the equation.

I have witnessed field engine swap outs of Chieftains in a German farmyard. Two cranes, two 20ton Fodens with replacement engine and parts, a REME detachment with Field workshop and various domestic vehicles. In real life this would have been a couple of miles behind the FEBA and would have required at least a platoon of infantry to secure the immediate area. 

Meanwhile the battle was moving at something like 30 miles per day. Much more sensible to torch the thing and move a replacement forward.

Not only complete engines, but consumables like spark plugs and oil filters would have to be supplied to tank units in the field and it doesn't make things easier if the tanks have four different types of engine instead of one. But this situation was accepted as a trade-off against larger production figures and a lower dollar cost for each tank.

Modern tanks have "power pack" engine installations allowing the complete engine, transmission and ancillaries to be replaced as a single unit, but this was not the case in World War Two.

Engines were the big limiter in that era. Consider the issues the Germans in particular had with underpowered engines. Even something looking as simple as the use of Merlin engines on aircraft gets complex when you realize how many versions there were of it (without considering the Meteor version used in tanks).

As for the Sherman igniting easily this is more to do with poor ammo storage initially than the fuel (see Neil Grant's Osprey book on British Tank Crew in the Warrior series).

Basically you end up with a choice - a few standardized tanks or lots of variants.

The problem still hadnt gone away in the late Cold War - the Soviets had the T64,T72 and T80 all being produced at once with variations even in these such as the T80D with a diesel engine as the gas turbine engines weren't available!

Ken P said

J. Southworth said

Gothic Image said

How much of that was evolution rather than lack of standardisation?

Making the same tank with four different engines at the same time makes no sense in terms of military efficiency and ease of supply. The best version was the M4A2 with the diesel engine, the petrol engined versions were very liable to catching fire if hit and were supposedly referred to as "Ronsons" after the cigarette lighter by the Germans, although their tanks also had petrol engines. The M4A2 was mostly used by the US Marine Corps.

I would suggest that four different engines makes little difference. Most military equipment is engineered for extended peacetime use, whereas most equipment survives only for only a few days/weeks on the front line. Extensive engine repairs or swap outs are rare during a dynamic war (the tank's environment) and even a single engine type would require a sizeable logistic and engineering support. The T34 was the ideal solution as a 'throw-away' weapon. Maybe not as powerful as a Tiger, but three T34s could take out a Tiger with the loss of one T34. This may have cost you a tank crew, but they are the cheapest component in the equation.

I have witnessed field engine swap outs of Chieftains in a German farmyard. Two cranes, two 20ton Fodens with replacement engine and parts, a REME detachment with Field workshop and various domestic vehicles. In real life this would have been a couple of miles behind the FEBA and would have required at least a platoon of infantry to secure the immediate area. 

Meanwhile the battle was moving at something like 30 miles per day. Much more sensible to torch the thing and move a replacement forward.

Lanchester's Law in effect. It's what beat the Germans in Russia. Their tanks were inferior, but they had a lot of them.

For those not in the know. Lanchester's Law

Suppose you have a Tiger (tank A), with a firepower of say 100 units and a 'life' of  250 units, and it opposes 5 tanks (B)of firepower 40 units and 'life' of 150 units. 

ist exchange, tank A targets (assume 100% accuracy) one of tank B units, it does 100 units of damage. 5 unit B's also fire, inflicting 200 units. 

2nd exchange, Tiger hits the same tank B, destroying it. Even if it hits before the others can retaliate, they still produce 160 units of damage which is enough to wipe tank A.

Devised by Lanchest and others in 1916, as a strategy for warfare, but I doubt it had the desired effect in the trenches.

James560492 said

Engines were the big limiter in that era. Consider the issues the Germans in particular had with underpowered engines. Even something looking as simple as the use of Merlin engines on aircraft gets complex when you realize how many versions there were of it (without considering the Meteor version used in tanks).

As for the Sherman igniting easily this is more to do with poor ammo storage initially than the fuel (see Neil Grant's Osprey book on British Tank Crew in the Warrior series).

Basically you end up with a choice - a few standardized tanks or lots of variants.

The problem still hadnt gone away in the late Cold War - the Soviets had the T64,T72 and T80 all being produced at once with variations even in these such as the T80D with a diesel engine as the gas turbine engines weren't available!

The Russians lost their enthusiasm for gas turbine engines in tanks after the First Chechen war, in which their fuel consumption and the inflammability of the kerosene fuel proved to be serious disadvantages.

Morph01 said

Ken P said

J. Southworth said

Gothic Image said

How much of that was evolution rather than lack of standardisation?

Making the same tank with four different engines at the same time makes no sense in terms of military efficiency and ease of supply. The best version was the M4A2 with the diesel engine, the petrol engined versions were very liable to catching fire if hit and were supposedly referred to as "Ronsons" after the cigarette lighter by the Germans, although their tanks also had petrol engines. The M4A2 was mostly used by the US Marine Corps.

I would suggest that four different engines makes little difference. Most military equipment is engineered for extended peacetime use, whereas most equipment survives only for only a few days/weeks on the front line. Extensive engine repairs or swap outs are rare during a dynamic war (the tank's environment) and even a single engine type would require a sizeable logistic and engineering support. The T34 was the ideal solution as a 'throw-away' weapon. Maybe not as powerful as a Tiger, but three T34s could take out a Tiger with the loss of one T34. This may have cost you a tank crew, but they are the cheapest component in the equation.

I have witnessed field engine swap outs of Chieftains in a German farmyard. Two cranes, two 20ton Fodens with replacement engine and parts, a REME detachment with Field workshop and various domestic vehicles. In real life this would have been a couple of miles behind the FEBA and would have required at least a platoon of infantry to secure the immediate area. 

Meanwhile the battle was moving at something like 30 miles per day. Much more sensible to torch the thing and move a replacement forward.

Lanchester's Law in effect. It's what beat the Germans in Russia. Their tanks were inferior, but they had a lot of them.

For those not in the know. Lanchester's Law

Suppose you have a Tiger (tank A), with a firepower of say 100 units and a 'life' of  250 units, and it opposes 5 tanks (B)of firepower 40 units and 'life' of 150 units. 

ist exchange, tank A targets (assume 100% accuracy) one of tank B units, it does 100 units of damage. 5 unit B's also fire, inflicting 200 units. 

2nd exchange, Tiger hits the same tank B, destroying it. Even if it hits before the others can retaliate, they still produce 160 units of damage which is enough to wipe tank A.

Devised by Lanchest and others in 1916, as a strategy for warfare, but I doubt it had the desired effect in the trenches.

The T34 was the most common Soviet tank during the Second World War, but they also had heavier tanks, like the KV and IS series with the 122mm gun, and heavy self propelled guns and tank destroyers like the SU 100 with 100mm gun, the SU 152, ISU 152 and ISU 122, which were capable of combating the Tiger and Panther tanks on roughly equal terms.

From mid 1943 onwards the Germans were defending most of the time and this gave them tactical advantages, they could channel the Russian armor into killing zones using minefields and anti-tank ditches, where it could be destroyed by carefully positioned, dug-in and camouflaged tanks and heavy anti-tank guns. But Hitler's orders to defend every inch of ground limited the German field commanders and led to the collapse of Army Group Centre in 1944. 

The Germans lost two armies before 1944. Stalingrad cost them the 6th, and in 1943 the 4th Panzer Army and the 9th Army were beaten during the Kursk campaign. At one point the Soviet tanks outnumbered the Germans by 10 to 1. The Western Allies had much to do with the Soviet victories by supplying fuel and weapons that the Soviets had difficulty producing themselves. Things might have gone differently otherwise.

Edited by Morph01

Morph01 said

The Germans lost two armies before 1944. Stalingrad cost them the 6th, and in 1943 the 4th Panzer Army and the 9th Army were beaten during the Kursk campaign. At one point the Soviet tanks outnumbered the Germans by 10 to 1. The Western Allies had much to do with the Soviet victories by supplying fuel and weapons that the Soviets had difficulty producing themselves. Things might have gone differently otherwise.

Edited by Morph01

You could make a good case for saying that the Nazis lost the war when they failed to capture Moscow in December 1941.

J. Southworth said

Morph01 said

The Germans lost two armies before 1944. Stalingrad cost them the 6th, and in 1943 the 4th Panzer Army and the 9th Army were beaten during the Kursk campaign. At one point the Soviet tanks outnumbered the Germans by 10 to 1. The Western Allies had much to do with the Soviet victories by supplying fuel and weapons that the Soviets had difficulty producing themselves. Things might have gone differently otherwise.

Edited by Morph01

You could make a good case for saying that the Nazis lost the war when they failed to capture Moscow in December 1941.

Memorandum for the President's Special Assistant Harry Hopkins, Washington, D.C., 10 August 1943:

In War II Russia occupies a dominant position and is the decisive factor looking toward the defeat of the Axis in Europe. While in Sicily the forces of Great Britain and the United States are being opposed by 2 German divisions, the Russian front is receiving attention of approximately 200 German divisions. Whenever the Allies open a second front on the Continent, it will be decidedly a secondary front to that of Russia; theirs will continue to be the main effort. Without Russia in the war, the Axis cannot be defeated in Europe, and the position of the United Nations becomes precarious. Similarly, Russia’s post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces.[115]

It was said that it was imperative that the western Allies aid the Soviet effort, as without the Russians, the invasions would most certainly have failed.

Borrowed from Wiki. :)

Edited by Morph01

Without America and the British Commonwealth in the war, the Russians could and probably would have been defeated I think. It should also be remembered that the Nazis and the Soviets were treaty partners until 1941.

Edited by J. Southworth