"Gentlemen, we shall fight this war with the tools we have at hand!"

But having many more small tanks use more fuel than a few big ones. You can't have the advantages without the disadvantages.

Considering that a lot of the German problems were related not so much to vehicles themselves but things like supply of spare parts, fuel and trained pilots and personnel simply adding more vehicles won't make as much difference as you might think at first.
Fuel consumption is determined by how many hundreds of thousands of vehicles are in use , not a few thousand tanks or even 10-15,000 half tracks.
 

gaijin

Banned
Fuel consumption is determined by how many hundreds of thousands of vehicles are in use , not a few thousand tanks or even 10-15,000 half tracks.

But those few thousand tanks and half tracks have a logistical tail, they need fuel, spare parts, etc. That means more trucks, and those trucks need supplies and fuel in turn. Etc. Etc. If you have more vehicles you can retool a few more infantry divisions as armoured or tank divisions. These need extra trucks to supply them though, and of course extra fuel. Not only that more vehicles means they are spread out over a wider geographical area, placing a heavier burden on logistics (you need more trucks and thus more fuel).

The whole point I was refuting was that heavy tanks use more fuel than small tanks. If you look per one tank this holds true, if you look at larger numbers this doesn't hold true because you shouldn't look at how much fuel the tanks themselves use, but how much fuel the logistical system overall uses. You add more tanks you add more logistical demands you need to add more trucks and fuel.
 

Redbeard

Banned
But those few thousand tanks and half tracks have a logistical tail, they need fuel, spare parts, etc. That means more trucks, and those trucks need supplies and fuel in turn. Etc. Etc. If you have more vehicles you can retool a few more infantry divisions as armoured or tank divisions. These need extra trucks to supply them though, and of course extra fuel. Not only that more vehicles means they are spread out over a wider geographical area, placing a heavier burden on logistics (you need more trucks and thus more fuel).

The whole point I was refuting was that heavy tanks use more fuel than small tanks. If you look per one tank this holds true, if you look at larger numbers this doesn't hold true because you shouldn't look at how much fuel the tanks themselves use, but how much fuel the logistical system overall uses. You add more tanks you add more logistical demands you need to add more trucks and fuel.

In this context the German concept of widespread use of horses actually was a good idea as it gave a certain logistic capacity independent of fuel and mechanics and utilised an available source of horses, fodder and men capable of handling both.

The major part of the German logistic capacity still was truck based, but without the horses the Wehrmacht would only have been able to field a fraction of its OTL force, and on the narrow track to the front unit a cart drawn by (small ugly) horses often was much more handy than a truck.
 
In this context the German concept of widespread use of horses actually was a good idea as it gave a certain logistic capacity independent of fuel and mechanics and utilised an available source of horses, fodder and men capable of handling both.

The major part of the German logistic capacity still was truck based, but without the horses the Wehrmacht would only have been able to field a fraction of its OTL force, and on the narrow track to the front unit a cart drawn by (small ugly) horses often was much more handy than a truck.

Horses are far more labor intensive, and other costs.
Like when the US was pre-mechanized, before Steam Traction engines, about 1/3 of a Farms acreage was set aside for growing fodder.
WWI showed a huge amount of transport was set aside for delivery of that low density, high bulk cargo. High numbers of horses preclude grazing, fodder and water must be shipped in.

Besides food, had to provide clean drinking water. Figure on one horse having the logistics footprint of 10 men.
Then add on that unlike vehicles, Horses need that food and water every day, if they are doing work or not.
Trucks only need fuel when doing work, and nothing when idle, and trucks required far less daily maintenance. Recall the saying,
'Rode Hard and put away wet' thats how you kill horses.

It's false economy. Horses have no place in front line operations in the 20th Century.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Horses are far more labor intensive, and other costs.
Like when the US was pre-mechanized, before Steam Traction engines, about 1/3 of a Farms acreage was set aside for growing fodder.
WWI showed a huge amount of transport was set aside for delivery of that low density, high bulk cargo. High numbers of horses preclude grazing, fodder and water must be shipped in.

Besides food, had to provide clean drinking water. Figure on one horse having the logistics footprint of 10 men.
Then add on that unlike vehicles, Horses need that food and water every day, if they are doing work or not.
Trucks only need fuel when doing work, and nothing when idle, and trucks required far less daily maintenance. Recall the saying,
'Rode Hard and put away wet' thats how you kill horses.

It's false economy. Horses have no place in front line operations in the 20th Century.

Don't agree. It wasn't possible for any nation/army to motorise an army big enough to engage the east front (The Red Army relied at least as much on horses as the Wehrmacht and in 1941 much more). But horses was a splendid opportunity to utilise resources and increase your capacity much beyond what would have been possible with motorised forces alone.

Horses alone of course would have put a severe 19th century limit on forces, because a horses alone logistic system soon will be overtaken by bringing forward horse fodder, but the combination with motor vehicles is effective. Germany wasn't especially short on manpower until late in the war and among the manpower it had more that could handle horses than drive and maintain trucks.

If I should suggest a simple pre-Barbarossa PoD it could be buying a big number of those little ugly but sturdy Russian horses and then start a huge breeding programme. If they could copy the 120 mm mortar then why not the horse? ;)
 
In what would be a massive change in the way that the Nazi government runs its war effort, what if at some point let’s say just after the Battle of Britain and just before Operation Barbarossa the realisation sets in that this will not be a quick war, there is a general meeting of the heads of department in which they look at the resources available and in a moment of sobriety the decision is taken ‘We shall fight this war with the tools we have at hand’.

If that’s the case then it’s likely that Barbarossa doesn’t go ahead at all. The entire basis of the operation was that it would quickly destroy the Soviet Union. If it’s accepted that Germany will have the majority of her efforts bogged down in the Soviet Union for years then the notion of invading the Soviet Union is going to be far less appealing.

but the Soviets are gathering strength? they might calculate their own version of Operation Pike while they still had access to Vichy Syria and capture of Leningrad on the march knocks Soviets out of offensive action for year(s)?
 
Don't agree. It wasn't possible for any nation/army to motorise an army big enough to engage the east front (The Red Army relied at least as much on horses as the Wehrmacht and in 1941 much more). But horses was a splendid opportunity to utilise resources and increase your capacity much beyond what would have been possible with motorised forces alone.

Horses alone of course would have put a severe 19th century limit on forces, because a horses alone logistic system soon will be overtaken by bringing forward horse fodder, but the combination with motor vehicles is effective. Germany wasn't especially short on manpower until late in the war and among the manpower it had more that could handle horses than drive and maintain trucks.

If I should suggest a simple pre-Barbarossa PoD it could be buying a big number of those little ugly but sturdy Russian horses and then start a huge breeding programme. If they could copy the 120 mm mortar then why not the horse? ;)


Correct!

For Germany - and most other armies of the time -fielding millions of men in arms meant relying on indigenous horses/wagons for most of there divisions. Most armies just didn't have the luxury of truck borne infantry.
 
But having many more small tanks use more fuel than a few big ones. You can't have the advantages without the disadvantages.

Considering that a lot of the German problems were related not so much to vehicles themselves but things like supply of spare parts, fuel and trained pilots and personnel simply adding more vehicles won't make as much difference as you might think at first.

Having fewer designs would surely mean a much more efficient spares program and crew training
 
Top