Was The 88Mm Gun An Overkill For The Tiger Tank?

[JtD]

53 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

... unless your system of mass production is vastly superior.

 

 

Or you have vastly more natural ressources, external help, lower quality standards and a headstart of maybe a year or two. But not, as you said, decades. The situation in the Soviet Union was so different from the situation in Germany, that neither could have adopted the others mass production philosophy and gain from it. The SU did not have the necessary skilled labour, Germany did not have the necessary space and natural resources.

 

Simple example, Germany had restrictions about maximum manufacturing buildings sizes, in order to minimize effects of bombings. Obviously, a larger assembly line will be benefitial for quick and cheap production. The US and the SU and to some extent the UK went there, and built the buildings as large as they needed to be. Germany built more buildings of the same maximum permitted size, separated by some distance so that, if a bomb hit, it couldn't damage two buildings. (This of course was no protection against the mass bombings of 1944.) In the end, when the war started and production geared up, the large Allied factories had one assembly line, in one building. Steel in, tank out. A German factory had half a dozen buildings, completing partial jobs, and 20% of the effort went into moving half ready products from one building to another.

 

Now we could argue all day if, at the time, this was the right decision, I don't think there's a conclusive answer.

 

Germany produced a lot more ships than the Soviet union did and loads more of important electronics stuff.

 

I also think that they outproduced the SU in terms of aircraft, not necessarily in numbers built, but in combat strength produced. I'd suppose that would already show in aircraft tonnage produced, as a first indicator, or engine power or some such if one was looking for technical indicators. What I mean by this is that it's not a sign of more industrial power if you built Po-2's in higher numbers than your opponent builts say P-47's. Po-2's might still win the war, though.

Edited June 11, 2019 by JtD

[ZachariasX]

59 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

Germany was outproduced by the USSR in most major fields of war production.

If you call producing the double amount of a some specific goods by using far more resources „outproduced“, fine. But it is rather meaningless. Production numbers of ships/subs was low, virtually nonexistent for jetfighters or radar tech.

 

Until 1943 a large part of the guns and the ammo were British or American made. Once production kicked in after a truly monumental task of relocating, they produced a lot at the expense of quality, something the Germans increasingly resorted to toward the last year of the war.

 

Fact is, Russian production was not to standards as used in the West and that skews the comparison. Nevertheless, for the Russians, this strategy worked well. But I would hardly call that a gold standard. The B-29 copy Tu-4 had a lower payload as standard the aluminum sheets used were of a thicker gauge, it increased the planes weight. Nobody takes decades to erode construction standards or send more peasants to work at gunpoint to increase production.

[Finkeren]

You're both really quick to shift the conversation to production standards. 

 

That was not was I was talking about. I was talking about pure quantity, and the fact is, that German industry on average was poorly geared to large scale wartime mass production, using far too many man hours per produced tank/truck/aircraft, relying on skilled labor, that they KNEW simply wouldn't be available. 

 

Obviously it is correct, that Germany could not simply have adopted the US or Soviet mode of production. This goes back to those intertwining issues, I mentioned. Even if they had somehow managed to ramp up production and transformed every single one of their divisions into a fully mechanized panzer division, they simply wouldn't have had fuel to send them on offensive or trained reservists to crew them, nor would they have had the logistical capability to supply them in the field. 

 

By 1941 Germany simply HAD to rely on their ability to continually increase the fighting potential of their equipment, they had no other option (other than the obviously logical but politically impossible one: sueing for peace) In this view, the Tiger makes a certain degree of sense, even if the actual tank was an expensive, over-engineered, needlessly complicated mess. And the 88mm gun at least made perfect sense. 

[SCG_Syn]

On 6/9/2019 at 12:37 PM, Torrens said:

Germany had enough manpower throughout the war untill 1944 way after the war was lost. This is the whole picture. I hope you re-consider this misconception in the future. The soviet soldier beat it's axis counterpart on the field. I can link you some cool videos on youtube that go in depth about this topic if you are interested.

So, then it begs the question. If Germany had sufficient manpower until 1944, why did the Germans have giant holes in their flanks at stalingrad, why was the front in Russia in 1941-42 so stretched. Surely if they had more manpower they could have filled those gaps, those flanks. Why is it then that they had to resort to pulling men off the coast of France and redeploying them in Russia. Why is it then that they had more planes then pilots, surely the luftwaffe would've just put more men in the sky to protect Germany from B17s. If Germany has so many men, then why the Volkstrum, or put Women into factories if there was so many men.

I apologize for derailing the discussion but this guy is completely wrong.

[JtD]

1 hour ago, Finkeren said:

That was not was I was talking about. I was talking about pure quantity, and the fact is, that German industry on average was poorly geared to large scale wartime mass production, using far too many man hours per produced tank/truck/aircraft, relying on skilled labor, that they KNEW simply wouldn't be available.

Oddly enough, production of German equipment didn't take that many man hours, compared to British or US industries at least. It needed more skilled labour though, because Germany didn't have the tools to allow skilled labour to be replaced with unskilled labour quickly and on a larger scale. Producing tools however requires skilled labour, and time. And you need new tools when you make a new product, same way you need to train people for a new product. And so on. US style assembly lines aren't the be-all end-all answer to everything in mass production, it simply wasn't appliciable to Germany at that time.

 

So, I don't think 'poorly geared' is an accurate general description for the German industry, given the output it managed. Six years simply are not enough to make a disarmed country competitive with the worlds largest military and economical powers. German industry did have particularities resulting from that rush and one effect was the inability to produce a tank like the Tiger I in numbers that mattered. Not a general inability to produce war material.

[Torrens]

14 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

I think you have misinterpreted  @SCG_Sinerox's comment:

 

 

The Germans did not have a shortage of unskilled workers, given that it could draw on the labour of the conquered territories - most of the increase in size of the German forces you point out came from the recruitment of Hiwis. What they did have was a shortage of skilled labour to make large quantities of sophisticated weapons, especially given JtD's point on their slowness in adopting assembly line techniques. They also lacked recruits with the prior experience of maintaining and operating motor vehicles. The US - and to a lesser extent the UK - could put into a tank a soldier who had prior mechanical work experience. The German's recruits had prior experience of maintaining horses. That is alright for the vast bulk of German artillery and supply wagons that were horse drawn, but a significant disadvantage in manning a mechanized formation.

 

So Sinerox is absolutely right that the Germans had manpower issues: not some much in the total number of warm bodies, but in building and operating advanced machinery, which is how I read his post. Whether that was material in deciding on a few heavy tanks rather than a large number of smaller ones I doubt: there were many factors involved and the tendency to go for "superweapons" seems to be a broader trend in German procurement. 

Very good arguments. Thanks for pointing out my misinterpretation. Sinerox would have to confirm it to be sure.  Looking at his comment the way you read it, I absolutely agree with you. Germany had to rely on unskilled workers on many homefronts and perhaps manning the armored vehicles too. I believe Soviets may have had similar issues with many skilled workers being sent to fight and thus the quality of tanks especially wasn't the best.

 

However I strongly believe that when it comes to warm bodies in the frontlines like the way I read the post, German Reich did have enough to field, reinforce and recover from the losses of 1941 - 1942 and even increase their total number of frontline bodies in 1943. With that in mind I also believe that they did have enough men to field more medium tanks in a fictional scenario where they only built medium tanks in large numbers. Ofcourse the lack of tankers having experience operating machinery before service would be even bigger issue than it was. There is a common misconception I see countless people talk about in forums that Germany was "bled white" through out the war. It is a wrong perception of the eastern front.

 

Thanks for your comments.

[Torrens]

8 hours ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

 

Hello Sinerox,

 

I am not wrong, your perception of the easter front is wrong.

 

 

I am glad that you brought up the Stalingrad issue that contradicts what I am arguing. Volkksturm was a last ditch effort in 1945, women in factories most likely after 1944, never heard of Luftwaffe haiving more planes than men. The reason they didn't fly was because they had no fuel to operate against allied B-17's. Not manpower issues. Why no reinforcements at Stalingrad? Clearly it contradicts me.The fighting must have been so attritional that Army group south bled to death in the city! How can Germany have manpower if they ran out of men? Lets investigate. This is a lenghty post so bear with me.

 

Between July - November 1942, the German losses on the eastern front amounted to around 498 786 in total. The number of replacements for all of eastern front during this period was around 509 700.              You liar!!! That can't bepossible!!! This can't be the case because units in Stalingrad were so depleted!!!! Go eat a cactus!!!!    The answer is simple.

 

To examine this lets give the background first

 

Paulus's 6th army fighting at Stalingrad was part of Von Bock's Army Group B. Army group south was split into two separate army groups: One for Stalingrad, another for Caucasus. Army Group A gets the priority during operation Blau, not Von Bock's Army group B. Keep this in mind. Von Bock's Army group is a flank guarding force, not the spearhead. As a result it doesn't get the priority in many respects: equipment, supplies, ammunition, manpower. By mid August 1942 ,11 divisions from Army groups A and B were withdrawn and sent to other theatres. They were stripped down while their battles intensified.

 

Lets compare every army group losses during July 1942 - November 1942. These numbers are closest estimates, not absolute.

Army group north -  104 657

Army group centre - 146 410

Army group A - 91 454

Army group B - 156 265

--------------------------------------------

 

But we now know that Germans were replenishing their losses all across the eastern front.      No they didn't you scumbag!!! I'm right and you are a dumb bolshevik!!!

 

Distribution of replacements during July 1942 - November 1942. These numbers are closest estimates, not absolute.

 

Army Group North - 111 100

Army Group Centre - 191 950

Army Group A - 106 150

Army Group B - 100 500

 

Oopsssieee.... army group B takes the most losses and receives the least replacements for all army groups on the eastern front. It is the only group that doesn't replace it's losses during the time period.     Hitler screaming in his bunker!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We now know that Army Group Centre took more replacements than their losses durin the time period, while the the focus was in the south, where they should've gone instead.

 

Why did replenishments go to centre instead of the south? Why was the main summer offensive stripped of 11 divisions?

 

Hitler had a clear conflict of interest with the German high command on where they should attack next. Hitler proposed for the Caucasus while the high command proposed central front and Moscow. General Franz Halder was one of the main advocates for central offensive and opposed Hitler's propositions furiously throughout the war. Halder believed that Caucasus was a waste of time and all efforts should be in the centre. Franz Halder and the german high command prioritised other army groups over A and B because they disagreed with the Furher. Hitler wanted the oil, high command wanted Moscow.

 

Conclusion

 

German Reich did have manpower to replace their losses with warm bodies in all of eastern front during Stalingrad. This did not happen due to internal politics in the high command, terrible staff work by the high command, supply issues and overly ambitious planning fot the offensive. German high command despised Hitler, which let to him sacking countless generals who didn't obey him and we all know this. These replacements were being sent to other theathers in the eastern front. New bodies were there, but they did not go to south.  Paulus's 6th Army was intended as a sideshow in the grand scheme of Fall Blau. It's priority was the lowest in all of eastern front, while the sector's intensity reached the highest. German high command failed to plan, foresee and react to this new development.  Don't feel bad for the units in Stalingrad. These formations and their replenishments, were the ones that murdered their way through Ukraine into Stalingrad. These men were not innocent.

 

NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN !!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Torrens

[Finkeren]

2 hours ago, JtD said:

So, I don't think 'poorly geared' is an accurate general description for the German industry, given the output it managed. Six years simply are not enough to make a disarmed country competitive with the worlds largest military and economical powers. German industry did have particularities resulting from that rush and one effect was the inability to produce a tank like the Tiger I in numbers that mattered. Not a general inability to produce war material.

 

That was pretty much exactly my point. If you look at my original remark, what I'm talking about is the German industry lagging behind that of the US and USSR in terms of mass production = output quantities.

 

Obviously, we could also look at the broader picture and analyze the German war industry as part of the broader war economy, but the picture really doesn't get prettier from there. To quote the YT-famous Bernhard Kast: "I personally think, that calling the Wehrwirtschaft in the Second World War a 'dumpster fire' is an insult to any respectable dumpster fire."

[JtD]

You make a point in making it a generalisation, I don't.

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, Finkeren said:

To quote the YT-famous Bernhard Kast: "I personally think, that calling the Wehrwirtschaft in the Second World War a 'dumpster fire' is an insult to any respectable dumpster fire."

But surely it was good enough for burning down half of the world.

 

I personally think that most historians have no friggin idea about mass production and the few who do understand mainly the American way of doing things.

[Aap]

12 hours ago, Finkeren said:

To quote the YT-famous Bernhard Kast: "I personally think, that calling the Wehrwirtschaft in the Second World War a 'dumpster fire' is an insult to any respectable dumpster fire."

 

Showmen often want to say something fancy or ground breaking, but I just wonder how could anybody take this guy seriously after he said something like that.

Maybe he is a comedian, though, and does not want to be taken seriously.

Edited June 12, 2019 by II./JG77_Kemp

[RhumbaAzul]

On 6/10/2019 at 3:43 PM, Torrens said:

Army group north certainly did not enjoy Baggration am I right? Contact me privately I don't want to read these lazy comments anymore in this thread

Excellent comeback, you Russian by any chance?

On 6/9/2019 at 4:48 PM, Torrens said:

My comments only adress the eastern front and not allies. They weren't fighting in the eastern front after all.

 

Axis powers outnumbered the soviet union in combined population after western parts of russia had been occupied. During Stalingrad, soviets were fighting numerically superior enemy in population, that had larger pool of manpower to replace losses from. How many units were in the frontline is different. That is not what I'm talking about. The situation later changed when soviets took back western russia. I'm trying to correct a common misconception that Germany did not have available manpower to replace losses. This is incorrect. The army increased by around 400.000 men between July 1941 and June 1943. Wermacht grew is size during the war for many years. Germany did not have manpower issues in the eastern front until operation Baggration destroyed argmy group north and were able to replenish tank losses up until Kursk 1943 without issues.

The Werrmacht and The German war industry was supported in turn, by badly trained conscripts from captured territories, like the German war industry was supported by slave labour, neither of these methods are conducive to excellence in either capacity ( from things like sabotage to lack of skill). Russia and it's population, on the other hand, was fighting for it's very being, patriotism in industry and in the field are very important factors in war. More so when failing to carry out your patriotic duty meant a, normally one way, ticket to the Gulag.

 

Not trying to understate the USSR's contribution to the 2nd world war, but lets not forget that the Germans were a long way from home and there supply lines were seriously compromised.

[Finkeren]

Seems like we got this dragged pretty far off topic, sorry. 

 

My point was not really to start a long discussion about the merits of the Nazi-German war production or the severity of their manpower issues. 

 

My point was simply, that given the situation the Germans faced in 1942, it kinda makes sense, that they would give priority for something as overpowered as the Tiger, but that it is also an indication of just how badly they were screwed at that point. If your answer to the situation at hand is "well, each of our tanks will just have to count for more, and we can't afford to lose them, so they need to be damn near indestructible", it's not really a sign, that things are going great for you. 

 

 

Interesting perhaps also to compare the Tiger to its Soviet counterpart, the KV. 

 

The USSR started the war with something not completely unlike the Tiger in the KV: Heavy, somewhat cumbersome but virtually impregnable with huge destructive potential. Yet just about every single upgrade to the design aimed at making the vehicle lighter to improve mobility to the point, where it weighed just about the same as the original design after they increased armor protection significantly and stuck a friggin' 122mm gun in it. The Germans however just seem to double down and pile on making ever heavier beasts. 

Edited June 14, 2019 by Finkeren

[SCG_SchleiferGER]

On 6/12/2019 at 11:15 AM, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Showmen often want to say something fancy or ground breaking, but I just wonder how could anybody take this guy seriously after he said something like that.

Maybe he is a comedian, though, and does not want to be taken seriously.

But he is quite right on that. No higher resources distribution structure at all, companies had to form interest groups to get what they needed.

Then there were fights between those groups despite of the common goal of winning the war. And then there was Generalbebollmächtigte, people that got authority in a task of building certain items for example. These tasks where too lossely defined so that there was not a clear autority at times.

 

3 hours ago, Finkeren said:

My point was simply, that given the situation the Germans faced in 1942, it kinda makes sense, that they would give priority for something as overpowered as the Tiger, but that it is also an indication of just how badly they were screwed at that point. If your answer to the situation at hand is "well, each of our tanks will just have to count for more, and we can't afford to lose them, so they need to be damn near indestructible", it's not really a sign, that things are going great for you. 

 

The USSR started the war with something not completely unlike the Tiger in the KV: Heavy, somewhat cumbersome but virtually impregnable with huge destructive potential. Yet just about every single upgrade to the design aimed at making the vehicle lighter to improve mobility to the point, where it weighed just about the same as the original design after they increased armor protection significantly and stuck a friggin' 122mm gun in it. The Germans however just seem to double down and pile on making ever heavier beasts. 

 

Tiger never had priority. It was a specialized tool for breakthrough, nothing more nothing less.

KV was not "virtually impregnable" not even in 1941.

The story about the KV that stopped a Panzer Division for example: That was one KV-1 from a russian tank division, which got wiped out the day before.

It just set on the Germans flanks, not even blocking the intended way of advance.

It was more or less like a 40 ton anoying fly , that hindered logistics. After it got focused, it was quickly deat with.

 

The tiger is not cubersome, at least not compared to its brothers like the Panzer III and IV.

It is faster than both of  them (albeit you wouldn't drive it constantly with 3000rpm, but that counts for the Panzer III and Panzer IV aswell ).

A significant part of the production cost of a Tiger was due to to the requirement to keep up with the other Panzers.

 

Lastly, every tank  design is a compromise. The later IS series may have been ligther, had a bigger gun and was more heavily armored, but it payed with crew space.

That results in a very slow rate of fire and low ammo count. But for its task of destroying fortifications that was quite acceptable.

[Finkeren]

8 minutes ago, SchleiferGER said:

The tiger is not cubersome, at least not compared to its brothers like the Panzer III and IV.

It is faster than both of  them (albeit you wouldn't drive it constantly with 3000rpm, but that counts for the Panzer III and Panzer IV aswell ).

A significant part of the production cost of a Tiger was due to to the requirement to keep up with the other Panzers.

 

A tank that heavy will always be somewhat cumbersome. The Tiger had pretty decent mobility but was quite the burden logistically and didn't cope too well on long marches. The slow turret traverse was also an issue. 

 

The problem for the KV/IS had less to do with weight and more to do with, that it was slightly too long relative to its width, making it slow to steer, even though its stearing mechanism was more advanced than that of the T-34.

 

 

[SCG_SchleiferGER]

1 minute ago, Finkeren said:

 

A tank that heavy will always be somewhat cumbersome. The Tiger had pretty decent mobility but was quite the burden logistically and didn't cope too well on long marches. The slow turret traverse was also an issue.

I agree, but it was intended a specialized tool, hence the addidional strain on the logistics system was deemed  aceptable.There was never the intesion to have hight numbers of tigers around. (Or use them as fire brigades like the Germans had to in the later stages of the war).

Tigers do not march on tracks, but on flatbed cars o rails. For a specialized tool that can be considered acceptabe.

Turret weight != turret speed. Compare Panzer IV and T-34 85. Both are electrical, but the T-34 85's which has the heavier turret, is faster.

The traverse speed can be increased, if it is viewed as too slow. As an example look at PantherD vs Panther A.

 

4 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

The problem for the KV/IS had less to do with weight and more to do with, that it was slightly too long relative to its width, making it slow to steer, even though its stearing mechanism was more advanced than that of the T-34.

From what I read the transmission was still of a very simple clutch and break style type . On lighter tanks that might work (T-34) but on heavier tanks thats a heavy drawback when not moving in a sraight line. (I have forgotten the other transmission type's name, where, when you steer left,  the left track slows down while the right track's speed is increased)

[Finkeren]

30 minutes ago, SchleiferGER said:

I agree, but it was intended a specialized tool, hence the addidional strain on the logistics system was deemed  aceptable.There was never the intesion to have hight numbers of tigers around. (Or use them as fire brigades like the Germans had to in the later stages of the war).

Tigers do not march on tracks, but on flatbed cars o rails. For a specialized tool that can be considered acceptabe.

 

If there was one thing Germany should have learned after a year of fighting in the east it should be, that you can't rely on railroad transportation and you will have to do considerable marches once in a while. They made the same mistake with the Tiger Ausf. B, which resulted in the debacle that was Heavy Battalion 501's first engagement with it on the Eastern Front. 

 

Specialized tools are all well and good, but when your lines are stretched thin, as they were in 1942, you will have to put out fires with what you've got. 

40 minutes ago, SchleiferGER said:

From what I read the transmission was still of a very simple clutch and break style type . On lighter tanks that might work (T-34) but on heavier tanks thats a heavy drawback when not moving in a sraight line. (I have forgotten the other transmission type's name, where, when you steer left,  the left track slows down while the right track's speed is increased)

 

You might be right that the KV-1 had a simple clutch and brake, but the IS vehicle definitely had differential steering. Not sure exactly when it was introduced. 

[NETSCAPE]

I like to visit this site from time to time. They do have a comment section for every AFV at the bottom of the page... we need more people engaging in the discussions! 

 

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/

[Aap]

2 hours ago, SchleiferGER said:

But he is quite right on that. No higher resources distribution structure at all, companies had to form interest groups to get what they needed.

 

Not fully sure what you mean by that, but Germany actually even had special ministry about war production. Albert Speer had very close relationship with Hitler himself, so you can't get mush "higher" in structure in that sense. Of course mistakes were also made and there are many myths and misconceptions out there, but there was a structure and it was getting results. On that note also, "higher distribution structure" or central planning is not necessarily the best way to handle resources and capacity.

 

Anyway, all this is secondary to just looking at results. German economy was in ruins in the beginning of the 30's. They had had heavy restrictions on all kinds of war related development, especially on air force and armor. They had less access to many important natural resources than other major powers. Yet, about half a decade later they had military and air force not only to challenge the strongest European nations, but to actually beat them. And once Germany was already way in over their heads by the beginning of 1942, being at war against the strongest industrial powers in the world, they still managed to draw it out for over three years and increase war production year by year, despite having heavy bombing campaign targeted specifically against their industry. If someone calls that a dumpster fire, he must be a comedian.

[SCG_SchleiferGER]

4 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Not fully sure what you mean by that, but Germany actually even had special ministry about war production. Albert Speer had very close relationship with Hitler himself, so you can't get mush "higher" in structure in that sense. Of course mistakes were also made and there are many myths and misconceptions out there, but there was a structure and it was getting results. On that note also, "higher distribution structure" or central planning is not necessarily the best way to handle resources and capacity.

 

Anyway, all this is secondary to just looking at results. German economy was in ruins in the beginning of the 30's. They had had heavy restrictions on all kinds of war related development, especially on air force and armor. They had less access to many important natural resources than other major powers. Yet, about half a decade later they had military and air force not only to challenge the strongest European nations, but to actually beat them. And once Germany was already way in over their heads by the beginning of 1942, being at war against the strongest industrial powers in the world, they still managed to draw it out for over three years and increase war production year by year, despite having heavy bombing campaign targeted specifically against their industry. If someone calls that a dumpster fire, he must be a comedian.

Hitler or Speer couldn't be everywhere at the same time. That's why "Generalbevollmächtigte" existed.

A "Generalbefollmächtigter" has the authority to make big decisions in order to fulfill  a task given to him.

 

Eg: Increase production of tanks at Henschel, make Mauser produce even more Kar98k, increase Panther production at MAN.

But all those tasks draw from the same, inite resource pool, meaning that when person x has to increase engine prodiuction at Maybach for the Panzers and person y has to increase engine production at  Junkers for the Luftwaffe, they are in direct competition for resources.

 

Now suppose you are in charge of of a steelworks company, which produces rolled armor for tanks. There are two people in front of your office, which both hava the backing of Speer and Hitler and both demand you to sell them all your inventory of rolled armor and priority for newly produced steel. What do?

 

Basicly it's a severe lack of prioritisation.

 

In the end it boils down to "they did what they could to make the system run better, but what can you do vs the greatest economies of that time"

[Aap]

45 minutes ago, SchleiferGER said:

Hitler or Speer couldn't be everywhere at the same time. That's why "Generalbevollmächtigte" existed.

 

The point being, this structure existed, instead of "no higher resources distribution structure at all". And again, even this point is secondary, as well as the discussion if this or that part should have been more centrally planned or market driven, state owned or privately run etc, when we look at the achieved production results and have someone call it just a random dumpster fire.

 

53 minutes ago, SchleiferGER said:

In the end it boils down to "they did what they could to make the system run better, but what can you do vs the greatest economies of that time"

 

Indeed, that I can agree on.

[Torrens]

18 hours ago, RhumbaAzul said:

Excellent comeback, you Russian by any chance?

The Werrmacht and The German war industry was supported in turn, by badly trained conscripts from captured territories, like the German war industry was supported by slave labour, neither of these methods are conducive to excellence in either capacity ( from things like sabotage to lack of skill). Russia and it's population, on the other hand, was fighting for it's very being, patriotism in industry and in the field are very important factors in war. More so when failing to carry out your patriotic duty meant a, normally one way, ticket to the Gulag.

 

Not trying to understate the USSR's contribution to the 2nd world war, but lets not forget that the Germans were a long way from home and there supply lines were seriously compromised.

Does my arguments make me russian? What is your thought process behind this?

 

I agree with your post and I already talked about those points with someone. Allied lend-lease was tremendous and helped immensly. Germany did have enough warm bodies to reineforce and recover it's losses up untill Kursk and Baggration.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Torrens