Monday, September 16, 2013

WWII Myths – Multitude of German AFV types

Something that is mentioned often online and in popular history books is that the Germans built too many different types of armored vehicles during WWII. If only they had concentrated production on a handful of types they would have produced more AFV’s than they historically did.

For example ‘Why the Allies won’ by Richard Overy says in page 201
‘At one point in the war there were no fewer than 425 different aircraft models and variants in production. By the middle of the war the German army was equipped with 151 different makes of lorry and 150 different motor-cycles. With such a variety it was difficult to produce in mass.’

I have already covered aircraft production here, so this time let’s take a look at tanks and self propelled guns.
I have posted the German production statistics here, using as a source the book ‘Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933 – 1945

Using that table and calculating what percentage of total production each vehicle’s production represents we get:


 
At first glance the myth seems to hold true! There are many different ‘types’, each representing a small percentage of production. Even the most well known vehicles do not stand out production wise.

For example the Stug III L/48 is at 16.9%, the Panther at 12.5%, the Pz III L/42 at 4.8%, the Pz IV L/48 at 12.5%.
Is that the end of the discussion? Definitely not! The problem for people who claim that the Germans produced too many types is that they are making a mistake in the way different vehicles are counted.

If two different AFV’s share most of their parts then they may be counted separately but in reality they are the same vehicle.
For example the Stug III that was built in large numbers was simply the same vehicle as the Pz III but with a fixed turret. The same was true for the Pz IV and the Stug IV/Jagdpanzer IV.

If we add up the Pz III, Pz IV, Panther and their fixed turret variants Stug III, Stug/Jagd IV/air-defense versions and JagdPanther then we get 74% of total AFV production. Notice that I haven’t added the Hummel and Nashorn that were built with parts from both the Pz III and the Pz IV, if we add them too then the percentage is 77%.
Panzer 38 production adds another 13.3%. This vehicle was produced throughout the war, first as a tank and then as a self propelled gun not because the Germans were awed by its performance but rather because they had captured the production facilities in Czechoslovakia and couldn’t use them for other purposes.

Even the lowly Pz II was built as a self propelled gun during the war in order to use the existing tank production facilities.
Considering all of the above it is obvious that the Germans built the same basic vehicle types during the war. Instead of introducing new types they simply modified existing types.

In 1940-42 production was centered on the Pz III, Pz IV and Stug III. Since Pz III and Stug III were basically the same vehicle that’s two main types plus the Pz 38.
In 1943-45 the Pz IV and Stug III/IV were joined by the Panther, while the Pz III was no longer built as a tank. So instead of two basic vehicle types we have three ( Pz IV-Stug IV- Jagdpanzer IV, Stug III, Panther) plus the Pz 38 in its SPG variant.

The situation per year is as follows, regarding the top three vehicles by production percentage (counting each vehicle separately):

For 1940



1940

Pz III

47%

Pz 38

17%

Pz IV

13%

Sum

77%

For 1941



1941

Pz III

46%

Pz 38

19%

Stug III

14%

Sum

79%

For 1942



1942

Pz III

43%

Pz IV

16%

Pz II

14%

Sum

73%

 
For 1943



1943

Stug III

26%

Pz IV

25%

Panther

16%

Sum

67%


For 1944



1944

Stug III  

24%

Panther

20%

Pz IV

18%

Sum

62%

 

For 1945



1945

Hetzer

27%

Stug III

25%

Jagd IV

14%

Sum

66%

 
If we count vehicles according to general type (so Pz III=Stug III, Pz IV=Stug IV=Jagd IV, Pz 38= Marder III= Hetzer, etc etc ) we get:

For 1940

1940
Pz III
0.48
Pz 38
0.17
Pz IV
0.13
Sum
0.78

 
For 1941

1941
Pz III
0.60
Pz 38
0.19
Pz IV
0.13
Sum
0.92

 
For 1942

1942
Pz III
0.57
Pz IV
0.16
Pz II
0.14
Sum
0.87

For 1943

1943
Stug III
0.31
Pz IV
0.26
Panther
0.16
Sum
0.73

Note that If we add Nashorn and Hummel then the we get 79%.

For 1944

1944
Pz IV
0.33
Stug III
0.25
Panther
0.22
Sum
0.80

For 1945

1945
Pz 38
0.29
Stug III
0.25
Pz IV
0.24
Sum
0.78

Verdict
It is true that the Germans built several different armored vehicle types during WWII. They did so mainly because they already had the production facilities for some of these types and they couldn’t afford to retool them. Instead obsolete tanks like the Pz III and Pz 38 were produced as self propelled guns.

However even under these circumstances three vehicles the Pz III, Pz IV and Panther (plus their fixed turret variants) accounted for most of the German AFV production, at 77%. Add the Pz 38 and you go to 90%.
The idea that they could have produced more if they concentrated on one type (like the Soviets did with the T-34 or the Americans and their M-4 Sherman) is not correct. Production was limited by the existing facilities and the low priority that was given to AFV production in the German war economy.


6 comments:

  1. That chart is rather interesting. Assuming that it is accurate, it's amazing how the aircraft category dwarfs everything else other than ammunition.

    As to the main point of the article, it still seems to me that the Germans wasted a good bit of time and resources making a bewildering number of specialized vehicles and sub-variants. You state "If two different AFV’s share most of their parts then they may be counted separately but in reality they are the same vehicle." But still, there has to be a certain amount of resources spent in creating a low production variant such as a Sturmtiger or a Jagdtiger. It does seem wasteful to me, although I have no data to suggest that these myriad versions of vehicles represented a significant waste of resources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aircraft and ammunition were the main ‘spenders’ of the German war economy, while AFV production was built up slowly. Of course there are alternative ways to count production (manpower involved, raw materials used etc). I think that in all cases AFV production is shown to have a lower priority.

      ‘it still seems to me that the Germans wasted a good bit of time and resources making a bewildering number of specialized vehicles and sub-variants’

      Like I said it depends on whether you count Pz III and Stug III separately, same with Pz IV and Stug IV/JagdPz IV. They’re the same vehicle so they shouldn’t be counted separately.

      ‘a certain amount of resources spent in creating a low production variant such as a Sturmtiger or a Jagdtiger’

      But those vehicles were simply the Tiger chassis with a fixed turret.

      It Is true that by counting the cost per vehicle (and not just production numbers) you can get different ‘percentages’ but I don’t think there will be a big difference in the end. Production was focused on the Pz III, Pz 38, Pz IV and Panther no matter how you count it.

      Delete
    2. Actually I did a very rough calculation using prices that I found at the feldgrau site.

      Stug III at 82.500 RM, PZ IV at 115.000, Tiger at 300.000 etc. I was too bored to look for something more definitive.
      The outcome is the same in that Panther, Pz IV and Pz III plus their fixed turret variants come at ~73% of total ‘value’.

      The only change is that the Tiger I, II plus the Sturmtiger etc get 13% and thus takes the place of the Pz 38.

      Delete
  2. Not particularly convincing. Overy may be exaggerating, but even though they are on the same chassis, there are significant differences between the tanks and their turretless siblings. In my opinion you go too far the other way in saying they're "the same vehicle." Such major variants require additional design resources, spare parts, training, and, sometimes, ammunition.

    And I don't agree with your final comment: "The idea that they could have produced more if they concentrated on one type (like the Soviets did with the T-34 or the Americans and their M-4 Sherman) is not correct. Production was limited by the existing facilities and the low priority that was given to AFV production in the German war economy." Claims that they could have produced more refer to increased efficiency within the allocation of resources for armored vehicles; producing more vehicles for the same effort.

    By the way, looking at Wikipedia and using your criteria, in 1943 the Americans were no better than the Germans, producing three separate AFV types: the Sherman, Stuart, and M-18 (I didn't count the British-ordered M-22). The Soviets also produced three basic types in 1943: the T-34, T-70, and KV. Since the Americans are touted as the paragons of rational production, I think the number of major variants that the Germans produced is relevant and should be considered as separate vehicles.

    Gary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ‘there are significant differences between the tanks and their turretless siblings’

      Like what? The turretless versions were actually much cheaper to produce because the turret was a big expense.

      ‘Claims that they could have produced more refer to increased efficiency within the allocation of resources for armored vehicles; producing more vehicles for the same effort.’

      You can’t produce more if you don’t have the necessary facilities, raw materials and manpower. Try to compare the Soviet facilities at Nizny Tagil, Tankograd and the US tank arsenals with German plants. The only one that is comparable is Nibelungenwerk in Austria. That one was used in the second half of the war.

      Delete
  3. To my understanding the reason for constructing (and designing) the assault guns was two fold:

    1. Utilize an existing chassis for carrying a larger gun (largen than the turret could house).
    2. At later stages saving on the turret components. Though at the same time tank turrets were mounted as fixed fortifications. The exent of this practise (number of turrets used) is beyond me, but gives some indication that this is a more complicated question.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete