You are in charge of armored vehicle doctrine and design in 1939...

You have a source on that?
I have footage.
The first 9 seconds show a panzer turret being machined, the curly stuff in the middle of the turret is the discarded metal from machining.
And that's quite a lot of stuff.
The roadwheels were also machined, as shown in the vid.
Thus making 6 Panzer III/IV roadwheels more efficient to create than 8 Panzer IV roadwheels.


You haven't demonstrated your point actually is accurate though. Just asserted something and gish galloped with it.
As demonstrated by the video about, machining takes time.
Much easier to work with flat plates of armor that's arranged in a slope than having to machine out a weird curved shape.

Quality dropped because they prioritized output over quality.
Which required the use of slave labor to do so, thus lowering quality.

The Autobahn actually was used for military operations. The other stuff was more political in use and as makework to get the population money in their pockets; I'd argue without that prerequisite the public wouldn't have tolerated any military spending while they were starving. That's something engineers tend to not consider with resource allocations: the actual needs of the public.

Now that said the Reichsbahn should have been a priority over the Autobahn, but at least the Autobahn had utility, as it allowed for forces to be driven around, like in 1936 in the Rheinland, 1938 in Austria and the Sudetenland, 1939 in core Czechia, in 1939 in Poland, and 1940 in France and the Lowlands. Plus of course in 1944-45. Don't forget that it also acted as a reserve airfield, as they had strips of straight, high quality paved sections as well.
Tank formations were transported by rail, because the steel treads would damage the asphalt.
Which means anything with tracks is a no-no on the Autobahn.
Only thing the Autobahn is good for is transporting wheeled units.
Which meant burning gasoline/diesel and lots of wear and tear on rubber tires.
Wastage of two resources that Germany can lest afford.

Railways only required the use of coal and steel, something the Germans had more of than oil and rubber.

And by the time the Autobahn was used as reserve airfields the USAAF was already running rampant over Germany and there was little fuel left for the Luftwaffe anyway.
Fuel that was wasted by using the Autobahn to transport units, according to you. :LOL:
 
I have footage.
The first 9 seconds show a panzer turret being machined, the curly stuff in the middle of the turret is the discarded metal from machining.
And that's quite a lot of stuff.
The roadwheels were also machined, as shown in the vid.
Thus making 6 Panzer III/IV roadwheels more efficient to create than 8 Panzer IV roadwheels.

Turret rings and roadwheels, not armor plate. Those need to be machined to the exact diameters. You do know the difference?

As demonstrated by the video about, machining takes time.
Much easier to work with flat plates of armor that's arranged in a slope than having to machine out a weird curved shape.
Said vid doesn't demonstrate what you claimed earlier.

Which required the use of slave labor to do so, thus lowering quality.
What other choice was there?

Tank formations were transported by rail, because the steel treads would damage the asphalt.
Which means anything with tracks is a no-no on the Autobahn.
Only thing the Autobahn is good for is transporting wheeled units.
Which meant burning gasoline/diesel and lots of wear and tear on rubber tires.
Wastage of two resources that Germany can lest afford.
Tanks were transported as far as possible via rail, but used roads when needed. Again I'm in support of rail over highways, but just am saying highways weren't a waste, just not optimal. If you ever use trucks and wheeled vehicles you'll expend something, but they need to be moved and sometime enough rail doesn't exist to move everything at the same time.

Railways only required the use of coal and steel, something the Germans had more of than oil and rubber.
Sure, but once again rail isn't infinite, so having a backup or roads where rail can't go is helpful.

And by the time the Autobahn was used as reserve airfields the USAAF was already running rampant over Germany and there was little fuel left for the Luftwaffe anyway.
Fuel that was wasted by using the Autobahn to transport units, according to you. :LOL:
I'm fairly sure it was used well before that in that role.
Fuel is used period, might as well get somewhere with it.
 
Turret rings and roadwheels, not armor plate. Those need to be machined to the exact diameters. You do know the difference?
76b01eba9554767d68312ca39a2aef04.jpg

"while the hull sides are also milled"
AKA machined

I mean seriously, how do you make RHA armor plates into that exact curved shape for the Panzer IV (and other tanks) without milling?
Because it sure as hell isn't cast armor.

What other choice was there?
Don't use slave labor in jobs where it's easy to sabotage things?

Tanks were transported as far as possible via rail, but used roads when needed. Again I'm in support of rail over highways, but just am saying highways weren't a waste, just not optimal. If you ever use trucks and wheeled vehicles you'll expend something, but they need to be moved and sometime enough rail doesn't exist to move everything at the same time.
The Autobahn was a complete waste.
All that money, effort, and manpower could have be redirected into overhauling German railways, which were in serious need of renovations.
Rail is so much more efficient that road because you can have a single locomotive towing over 50 train cars while a truck can only carry so much cargo.
And all those locomotive factories can be easily converted into tank factories, Henschel (maker of the Tiger I) is a prime example.

Chad Deutsche Reichsbahn > Virgin Autobahn

Sure, but once again rail isn't infinite, so having a backup or roads where rail can't go is helpful.
Do you have an example where rail can't go but road can?

I'm fairly sure it was used well before that in that role.
Fuel is used period, might as well get somewhere with it.
Fuel that was desperately needed on the Eastern Front.
Not to mention all that asphalt for the Autobahn which came from Germany's tiny stock of petroleum.
Fuel is used, yes, but in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.
Which is why Germany lost WW2.
 
Mountainous terrain, parts of cities away from the rail right of way, indeed anywhere where there isn't a rail right of way, thick forest (easier to cut roads than railroads) etc.

Was the autobahn gold-plated? Yes, but it wasn't useless either.
 
For the Germans, standardize on the Panzer IV Chassis with the short 75mm for the infantry support role as OTL but also the L60 50mm for the Anti-Tank role. Also, to quote from The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze:


Between the continued allocation of resources and economies of scale, the Germans would have much larger production of a stable, effective tank model.

@sillygoose instead of the L60 50mm, do you still think using the dual purpose L41 75mm cannon was possible? For those who don't know, said gun was available in 1935 and, while less powerful than the later KwK40, it was however much more powerful than the L24 and aforementioned 50mm L60. It would thus make an excellent tank gun into 1942, by which time the KwK 40 should be available (if not earlier) in sufficient numbers to replace it.

I'd also like make the general point that more Panzers from 1938/1939 on would, in my estimation, be decisive for the war in Russia and thus the war at large in the 1941-1943 timeframe.
 
Last edited:
Well, lets see; I think my changes will be less technical, more doctrinal.

A few tech changes:
1) Ramp up production of ACPR and incendary rounds as high as possible, in most major calibers.
2) Fewer .50 cals for secondary weapons, more 20mm autocannons.
3) License build the latest Brit 12 pounders or 14 pounders for Sherman's, instead of the 57mm or 76mm.
4) Introduce the concept of 'composite armor' and mounted anti-tank rockets like the BMPs have.
5) Devise a semi-remote turret system operated using mirrors, pulleys, small electric motors, and view slits to operate the topside .50 cals/20mm guns without needing to expose the commander.
6) Introduce blowout ports around ammo/engine areas, to increase crew suitability.
7) Produce a heavy tank similar to the M6, and keep the 90mm gun on it, but reduce the hull size.
8) Produce a light tank/armored car with a .50 cal and a turret mated anti-tank rifle like the PTRS, capable of being dropped by parachute from a Lancaster or Liberator.

Doctrinal changes:
1) More tanks placed in the Philippines, to make taking them much harder.
2) Fewer tanks sent to Chinese nationalists, so fewer end up in Japanese or CCP hands later.
3) More flamethrowers tank, sooner.
 
By then it would have been too late though. I get the feeling that the German designers sometimes lacked imagination when compared to the Soviets.

Both have imagination.Problem is - soviet though about easier possible tank which would still worked,germans - about mpst complicated tank which would still worked.
Results? Panther could destroy T.34.85 units even when they have 2:1 numerical advantage loosing few tanks,but later,when they must widraw,half of their tank must be abadonned becouse of mechanical failures.
 
@sillygoose instead of the L60 50mm, do you still think using the dual purpose L41 75mm cannon was possible? For those who don't know, said gun was available in 1935 and, while less powerful than the later KwK40, it was however much more powerful than the L24 and aforementioned 50mm L60. It would thus make an excellent tank gun into 1942, by which time the KwK 40 should be available (if not earlier) in sufficient numbers to replace it.
I did post about it earlier. Yes, IMHO it was the way to go pre-war since it already existed then.

I'd also like make the general point that more Panzers from 1938/1939 on would, in my estimation, be decisive for the war in Russia and thus the war at large in the 1941-1943 timeframe.
Why?
 
Mountainous terrain, parts of cities away from the rail right of way, indeed anywhere where there isn't a rail right of way, thick forest (easier to cut roads than railroads) etc.
Narrow-gauge railway - Wikipedia
narrow gauge says hello
For all your mountain, forest, city needs.
Also cheaper than a standard gauge railway.

Was the autobahn gold-plated? Yes, but it wasn't useless either.
It wasn't useless, but all things considered, it was a massive waste of resources that could have been used in other, more important applications which would have had a more decisive effect on the war.
Ironically, the Allies ended up making more use of the Autobahn in their advance into Germany than the Germans did during WW2.
A road does go both ways.
 
OK, so if I would take Germany:
1) Start development of 7.5 cm / L70 immediately, as well as conversion of 8.8 cm Flak to a PaK - to be used as a basis for both towed and vehicle anti-tank gun
2) Reduce the number of types armoured vehicles:
- Scouting car: Kfz.14 or Sd.Kfz.231
- Light tank: Panzer II, but only if Marder II cannot pick up the role
- Medium tank / MBT: Panzer IV Ausf.G
- Heavy tank: none
- Light tank destroyer: Marder II (Sd.Kfz.132) - also has role of a light tank
- Medium tank destroyer: StuG III Ausf.G
- Heavy tank destroyer: none, but with an eye towards 8.8-cm gun on Panzer IV chassis if needed
- AA Tank: Flakpanzer II
- SPG: either Wespe or s.I.G. Bison II
End result: 6-8 combat vehicle types (1 scouting car, 5-7 AFVs)
3) Give rewards to designers who manage to keep number of components in a vehicle design to a minimum.
4) Start development of various fuels that could be made out of materials other than oil, and if they already exist, increase their production.
5) Instead of taking industry of conquered countries to Germany, treat workers and population humanely and have them switch factories to production of the abovementioned types of AFVs under puppet governments.
 
@sillygoose instead of the L60 50mm, do you still think using the dual purpose L41 75mm cannon was possible? For those who don't know, said gun was available in 1935 and, while less powerful than the later KwK40, it was however much more powerful than the L24 and aforementioned 50mm L60. It would thus make an excellent tank gun into 1942, by which time the KwK 40 should be available (if not earlier) in sufficient numbers to replace it.
A Pz Sfl II that was part of the DAK managed to take out 3 UK tanks before it was destroyed (it was really light on armor).
That's pretty good TBH.
And the data for the 7.5cm L/41 is pretty encouraging as well (using your source).
It fired a 6.8 kg APCBC shell at 685 m/s. That's double the velocity of the L/24 and more than three times the weight of the 5cm L/60's APCBC shell.
The high explosive shell of the L/41 is also heavier than the one used by the L/24, 5.85 kg for the L/41 compared to only 4.42 kg for the L/24.
This means that the 7.5cm L/41 can probably pierce the armor of the Char B1 and Matilda II at normal combat ranges (1 km) and the damage effects are far better than that of the 5cm L/60.
The high explosive shell has more mass than the L/24, therefore translating to more boom power.

I wonder why the Germans never put that gun into mass production?
 
Also, I'd have focused on the VK30.01 over the Panther for the Germans. No heavies either after the Tiger I, as they weren't needed and sucked up resources.
 
Narrow-gauge railway - Wikipedia
narrow gauge says hello
For all your mountain, forest, city needs.
Also cheaper than a standard gauge railway.


It wasn't useless, but all things considered, it was a massive waste of resources that could have been used in other, more important applications which would have had a more decisive effect on the war.
Ironically, the Allies ended up making more use of the Autobahn in their advance into Germany than the Germans did during WW2.
A road does go both ways.
Narrow-gauge can work, but only up to certain inclines (unless you build monster locomotives like the Big Boys). Moreover, you then need to interface between the narrow and standard gauge lines, both require extensive switchyards if you want any sort of traffic volume, etc.

Note that switchyards are far more vulnerable than anything on a highway system, severely damage one and you can cripple hundreds of miles of rail line.

Anyways, back to the original topic (not that I dislike the discussion about logistics!)

As Germany.

Go towards Pz III/IV production as the initial 'MBT', followed up by a Panther with the following changes.

A 'powerpack' arrangement of gearbox, stearing gear, engine, radiators, etc at the rear of the hull.

Non-interleaved torsion-bar suspension.

Eliminate the shot traps on the turret front.

Eliminate the hull machine gun and reduce crew to 4.

Incidentally, I would also arrange a tragic accident the first time the Nazi party leadership showed up to view the new tanks, as they tragically accidently massacre everybody on the reviewing stand in a horrible accident, then in their haste to rescue the injured accidently run everybody over with their tracks a few times. I would then promptly blame the Soviets for the horrible assault on the Reich and expel their diplomats and technical people, before offering Poland a very good deal on my old Pz II's, III's, and IV's.

For the British.

I would take the designers of the Covenanter behind the woodshed and give them a spanking, then make them move the radiators to the rear deck with the engine. I would also make them switch to torsion bar suspension to free up room in the hull to widen the turret ring enough to handle a 6 pounder from the start.

I would also fully support production of the TOG, because TOG is life, TOG is love. ((honestly, the requirements the design team for TOG were given were *insane*, that they managed to not only fulfill all of them, but exceed most of them, with a design that was actually very reliable was a credit to just how skilled The Old Gang actually were)).

Soviet Union
First arrange tragic haircut accidents for the entirety of the KGB and Soviet leadership (I said a little off the top, too bad they interpreted that as their entire heads...)

Then sell all of my useless BT-series tanks to Poland at a really good discount, along with as many T-28's and T-35's, T-50's, and T-60's as I can con them into accepting.

After this, build T-34s while focusing development work on the T-34M and T-44 designs. Continue development of the KV-series.

Strive for a fully mechanized force. Use the T-60/T-70 platform to build recon vehicles, the T-34M/T-44 as the main battle tank, and evolved KV-series as the heavy breakthrough tank. Use the T-34 and KV chassis for self-propelled guns and APCs.

For Japan
Crash build the O-I, then use it to run over all of the militarists in the government, along with as many of the radical militarists in the Army as fail to run away fast enough. When the Kwantung Army revolts, laugh in their face while cutting off all logistical support and declaring them to be bandits and rogues.

And then ask the US to pretty please not cut off our resource imports.

For France
Shoot myself in the head because they are completely hopeless

For Italy
Hire Enzo Ferrari with the brief to make a version of the trademark Italian tankettes that could break 100 mph cross country, scrap everything else, paint them all bright Ferrari red, and create the new sport of Tank Rallycross.
 
More tanks for Barbarossa would result in 7% more casualties; decisive in 1941, probably not but I think it would be enough to ensure the fall of Leningrad due to primacy of the defense of Moscow to Stalin in terms of the placement of reserves. Alternatively, it could also mean Stalin writes off the Donets and attempting to relieve Crimea. Either way is a significant boon to the prospects of Fall Blau in 1942.
Or just focus on taking Moscow to the exclusion of Lenningrad and Ukraine in August. No need for additional AFVs. As you point out German panzer divisions were too AFV heavy in 1940 anyway, so more in existing divisions is no real help other than to replace losses and Pz Is, IIs, and 38ts with more modern designs.

Though if you really wanted more AFVs as Askey points out, source in your link, the Germans just needed to ship more of their production east in 1941 rather than retain spare parts and new units for forming new divisions. The biggest problem the Germans had during and after 1941 was too many new divisions were being formed to the exclusion of keeping existing divisions with sufficient replacements for everything. It took considerable arm twisting with Hitler to get him to authorize shipping 300 spare engines East in August IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Or just focus on taking Moscow to the exclusion of Lenningrad and Ukraine in August. No need for additional AFVs.

Agreed in general, I just meant in terms of focusing in on what could be done through the purview of this thread. The Germans made a lot of mistakes with AFVs and I think that avoiding those could've been decisive.
 
Agreed in general, I just meant in terms of focusing in on what could be done through the purview of this thread. The Germans made a lot of mistakes with AFVs and I think that avoiding those could've been decisive.
I edited my post FYI.
Also I think the strategic/operational errors Hitler made in 1941 were much more decisive than having more AFVs. Not saying having more AFVs would have been bad (should have partially mechanized the 1st Cavalry division IMHO and included AFVs in motorized infantry divisions in 1941 instead of waiting until 1942), just that throwing them at existing units wasn't much help, as Marcks Plan acknowledge in your link. Given that motorized infantry divisions were used as spearhead units anyway having a battalion of AFVs would have been a huge help for them and since that was recognized after the fact and Panzergrenadier divisions created (added a panzer abteilung) from 1942 on, why not do that in 1941 instead of forming new Panzer divisions?

You can even forget making more panzers, just give them a StuGs. Even easier to make than panzers.
 
Last edited:
I edited my post FYI.
Also I think the strategic/operational errors Hitler made in 1941 were much more decisive than having more AFVs.

Again, totally agreed; the Kiev Diversion, the Kalinin Diversion, etc were war changing decisions. I'm just focusing in on changing it via an alternate AFV policy, given the thread topic.

Or just focus on taking Moscow to the exclusion of Lenningrad and Ukraine in August. No need for additional AFVs. As you point out German panzer divisions were too AFV heavy in 1940 anyway, so more in existing divisions is no real help other than to replace losses and Pz Is, IIs, and 38ts with more modern designs.

Though if you really wanted more AFVs as Askey points out, source in your link, the Germans just needed to ship more of their production east in 1941 rather than retain spare parts and new units for forming new divisions. The biggest problem the Germans had during and after 1941 was too many new divisions were being formed to the exclusion of keeping existing divisions with sufficient replacements for everything. It took considerable arm twisting with Hitler to get him to authorize shipping 300 spare engines East in August IIRC.

A function of having economies of scale and larger overall AFV production would help with that, even without taking those strategic decisions simply due to having more equipment in general.
 
Again, totally agreed; the Kiev Diversion, the Kalinin Diversion, etc were war changing decisions. I'm just focusing in on changing it via an alternate AFV policy, given the thread topic.
Sorry, edited that comment too right as you were working on this reply.

Gotcha as to your point above, but my edit covers what you could do instead with AFV policy.

A function of having economies of scale and larger overall AFV production would help with that, even without taking those strategic decisions simply due to having more equipment in general.
See my edit in the last comment I made before this one.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top