War Factories; Lack of Standardisation

J. Southworth said

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

December 1941 was also the date that Germany declared war on the neutral USA.

Morph01 said

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.

 

Little known side note of history, many of the front line troops in Normandy and Brittany were Russians.

They were former Russian soldiers who had been captured by the Germans and persuaded to serve under the German flag. Most were Cosacks, Letts and Ukrainians who opposed the Bolsheviks, but they all knew they faced summary execution if they ever fell back into Russian hands. So they had every incentive to fight.

Historic records shows that those taken prisoner by the Allies were indeed handed over to the Russians and then 'disappeared'.

Ken P

I remember watching documentaries about that. Solzenitzin (I probably spelt that wrong) wrote a play about some of them forced into slave labour in the gulags. There wsvalso a book I read about one guy who escaped and made it to Mongolia.

Given the allies knew what was in store I'd say the blame lies directly at their door.

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.

Particularly in the North African desert, command of the battlefield was vital so that at the end of a day's fighting the side that had control, could go out and retrieve damaged tanks and quickly refurbish them.

Although in the later stages of this theatre the German's had few tanks, they kept up their numbers in this way.

Morph01 said

Ken P

I remember watching documentaries about that. Solzenitzin (I probably spelt that wrong) wrote a play about some of them forced into slave labour in the gulags. There wsvalso a book I read about one guy who escaped and made it to Mongolia.

Given the allies knew what was in store I'd say the blame lies directly at their door.

Solzhenitsyn mentions in The Gulag Archipelago some of the men who fought on the Nazi side under the renegade Russian General Vlasov, who was executed at the end of the war while his men ended up in labour camps. Their decision to fight on the German side may have been influenced by the alternative of death by starvation in a POW camp. 

Mass production and standardisation made the world today, during WWII many things were bodged together so as they fitted, bad news for replacement parts

I saw the fifth programme in the series last night, in which they made the point that you can only mass produce something once the design is finalised, with the B24 Liberator bomber it took a long time to do that.

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.

The tank crew are not necessarily as expendable as that, it may take a week to build a tank but to train people to operate it efficiently takes longer. A few months at least.

J. Southworth 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.

The tank crew are not necessarily as expendable as that, it may take a week to build a tank but to train people to operate it efficiently takes longer. A few months at least.

The Russians had over 20,000 trained tank crews at the start of the war.

Ken P said

J. Southworth 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.

The tank crew are not necessarily as expendable as that, it may take a week to build a tank but to train people to operate it efficiently takes longer. A few months at least.

The Russians had over 20,000 trained tank crews at the start of the war.

Maybe so, but they weren't well trained compared with the Germans and their tactical doctrine was poor. Most Russian tanks didn't have radios, communication relied on flag signalling. The Russian army officer corps had been decimated by Stalin's purges in the 1930s and the quality of leadership was generally poor as a result. Also, the Germans had a lot of combat experience by the time they invaded Russia in 1941.

J. Southworth said

Ken P said

J. Southworth 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.

The tank crew are not necessarily as expendable as that, it may take a week to build a tank but to train people to operate it efficiently takes longer. A few months at least.

The Russians had over 20,000 trained tank crews at the start of the war.

Maybe so, but they weren't well trained compared with the Germans and their tactical doctrine was poor. Most Russian tanks didn't have radios, communication relied on flag signalling. The Russian army officer corps had been decimated by Stalin's purges in the 1930s and the quality of leadership was generally poor as a result. Also, the Germans had a lot of combat experience by the time they invaded Russia in 1941.

None of that disproves my original point, that  the Russian crews were of least importance to their leadership. 

Ken P said

J. Southworth said

Ken P said

J. Southworth 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.

The tank crew are not necessarily as expendable as that, it may take a week to build a tank but to train people to operate it efficiently takes longer. A few months at least.

The Russians had over 20,000 trained tank crews at the start of the war.

Maybe so, but they weren't well trained compared with the Germans and their tactical doctrine was poor. Most Russian tanks didn't have radios, communication relied on flag signalling. The Russian army officer corps had been decimated by Stalin's purges in the 1930s and the quality of leadership was generally poor as a result. Also, the Germans had a lot of combat experience by the time they invaded Russia in 1941.

None of that disproves my original point, that  the Russian crews were of least importance to their leadership. 

There's a contradiction there, because the Russians did expend a lot of resources mechanising their army in the 1920s and 1930s. Stalin took a personal interest in tank design and development, as did Hitler.