decisive battle debate

1)you have no idea of the pre war situation in Europe : there was no need to walk miles to the vet:there were a lot of vets,and they were nearby,there were few garages ,and they were far away :besides,a Ford dealer could not repair a Mercedes:he had not the needed spare parts,in a lot of cases,he had even not the needed spare parts for a Ford .,if the problems were complicated,the car in question had to go (=transported) to a big city,to a well equipped garage .If there were big problems with a horse,the horse would be shot: it was easier to find a horse than a truck .

2) you need more than fuel to advance ,you also need shells,etc,and,the stronger the enemy,the more forces (thus supplies) you will need and the slower will become your advance : the enemy is determining the advance:during the last days of Fall Rot (june 1940) small German units could advance very fast,the French were on the run,while at the start of Fall Rot,only big German forces could advance,much slower than the small units at the end of june .

 

OK how many vets were there in Germany at the time? Did they tend to have their offices in the industrial sectors? Note that an office a mile away may be the equivalant of a garage 10 miles away if it is walking vs driving.

Were they? I would suspect that they would be close to at least some people unless they established themselves deliberatly in the middle of farms or such.

Are you saying the only garages or even most of them were at dealerships? In any case why couldn't a Ford dealer repair a Mercedes and visa versa? Even today the garage may not have spare parts they can be ordered then just like now.

And you just lost your investment. In a city finding a horse at least one that you would want to buy may not be any easier than finding a truck by the way. Each horse is an individual where a truck of a particular model is pretty much the same as any other truck of that model especially when new. That means it takes a lot more skill to buy a horse and the buying or selling of the same is likely to be more complex. So again you are making assumptions that may or may not be true but confusing them with facts. I guess I should say "still" rather than "again" shouln't I?

Or not. What you seem to be assuming is an ironclad rule is at best an aproximation that is occasionally correct. For instance if one is meeting very little resistance then the determing factor is likely to be the commanders view of what resistance is possible or likely (i.e. risks vs rewards) and not the current resistance at all. On other occasions one can unhing an opposing position by maneuver and not necessarily require additional forces. All of which is irrelevant to the topic that spawned this though as evidence has already been presented that Patton's advance was slowed prior to the resistance stiffening and indeed that slowing allowed the resistance even more time to stiffen.

 

I never said that horse-drawn transportation was better than motor transportation,but I object to the claim that it would have been better for the Ostheer if in 1941 it had more MT and less horse-drawn transport ,because the reasons that were given for the claim that MT was better than horse-drawn transport do not mean that the Ostheer would be better of with more MT and less horse-drawn transport,and I don't understand why some people refuse to understand this point .

2 exemples :If Lockheed had tomorrow an aircraft that was better than what the USAAF has today,that will not mean that the USAAF would be better of with the new aircraft ,it could be that the existing one would suffice .

:If there was a new and better fire-resistant suit available for the fire brigade in Alabama,this would not mean that it would be a good choice for the fire brigade to buy this new suit,it could also be that the old one would be good enough .

ONE of the reasons (in both cases) is that to buy something means not to buy something else,that could be more needed. It is a question of priorities .

For the trucks in 1941,it has been claimed that trucks could transport more goods and faster,but,this is not a valid argument,because,it implies that
a) the industry could produce more goods

B) the railways could transport more goods

c) that there would be more place in the depots

d) that more goods would be needed

The fact is that in the summer of 1941,the Ostheer,using the existing combination of HDT and MT won and failed .

It won = it eliminated the standing Soviet forces,it could also have won with more MT and less HTD

It failed:the Soviets were not defeated,because they were able to send every month 1 million soldiers to the front and more MT and less HDT would not prevent this .

The conclusion is that more MT would not have improved the situation of the Ostheer ..

 

I think we understand the point you are trying to make we just don't think it is correct.

??? You do realize that didn't make any sense don't you? If the new aircraft is better then it follows that the USAF (not AAF by the way that organization hasn't existed for 50 years) would be better equiped with the new air craft.

If the new suit is better then it does indeed follow. The only question would be is it indeed better? If it is more fire resistant but the current suit is good for any fire that they are likely to run across then is it better? Perhaps if it is cheaper, or easier to use, or more flexable. But better by definition means its' more capable, it doesn't mean that it is required and indeed in this case they might never run into a case where the improvements came into play but if such a situation was possible and at all likely the suit would indeed be "better" and if practicle they should plan on buying it.

No that doesn't mean that the new system isn't desireable. It may mean that it is not bought or not bought in the numbers desired but we weren't addressing this aspect of it. Then there's the fact that sometimes better means that it is cheaper. It does mean that a revision of priorities is likely required but again we weren't addressing that. Indeed that's a question one goes into once one determines that a particular system would result in a more capable unit.

Not just claimed but proven rather conclusivly.

It is indeed a valid argument and implies none of the things you suggest it does.

Rather wierd phrasing but roughly correct.

Both parts of the above are conjucture on your part. If the Germans could have penetrated deeper in the same amount of time then they may have captured or killed more Soviets and if deep enough inhibited the ability of the Soviets to mobilize the above quantities of troops. Even if they didn't that doesn't mean that a more mobile Ostheer wouldn't have been supperior to the historical one.

Again that's your conclusion but it is not well supported and indeed the evidence suggest otherwise.

 

Once again with the preposterous presumptions about what other people know, and some insane inflated idea about what yourself claim to know, which is vastly ridiculous.

In rural areas, of course it's going to be miles to get to the vet, even in Europe. At the very least, you'd have to get to the nearest village.I don't know which part of Europe you're claiming to be from, but most villages are separated by more than a few miles, and not every village had a vet, or doctor, for that matter.

Where do you imagine all these issues? People were far more self-sufficient, even when it came to motor vehicle maintenance. Not only were motor vehicles more simpler devices than they are today, it was perfectly reasonable to show the local blacksmith the broken item, and to request he make you another (you know, the same guy that made the horseshoes...). Or what vastly complicated problems are you assuming struck almost every motor vehicle on even a semi-regular basis, that really had consumer's concerned? Admit it, your "issue" is a non-issue, and didn't figure into most people's reasoning at the time. You make out like it was the age of vehicular hypochondria.

 

how much Germany could produce is irrelevant to the question. Having motorized transport is better then horse drawn, otherwise armies would not have abandoned the use of the horse. The Soviets using American made trucks and jeeps had no issue moving through the mud and on the roads of Russia. Your point is only relevant to the quality and quantity of trucks which was far lower then western countries. Having effective motorized vehicles would have greatly increased the performance of the German army. Again compare the performance of the Soviet army from 1941 to 1945. It greatly increased in capacity

 

I am horrified by this argument

 

Most farms were small and there was no need for a truck/tractor: the work was done by the women who were working for free .

 

When exactly, do you imagine this non-need occurring in Germany?

Most of your generalizations / assumptions thus far have been wrong.

Do you imagine that they would refuse a labour saving device, on the account that they are women?

 

The chief of the farm was a man,the farmer,and why would he buy a tractor for a small farm if the work was done by labour ?

Recently,I saw The Quiet Man,and I remember the scene where Maureen O'Hara (in the movie married to John Wayne) said to her new husband :I will cultivate the land.
They had no truck/tractor.

This was the situation in a very big part of the German (and European) agriculture:small farms where a family could not survive : the men were working in a factory in the town,the women were cultivating the land .

Motorisation was conspiciously absent :there was no money to buy MT and the farms were to small for MT to pay .

And even the great estates (in East Prussia) were in big difficulties .

The only possibility was legal re-division and re-allotment,but the regime was not willing to risk a peasant revolt .

Only after 1960 (with the Mansholt plan) did the situation start to change .

 

So what you are really trying to say, is not that there was not a "need" or "use", but there was not an economic possibility for many. Which is something entirely different. As we've stated before.

Because the need was there. Labour saving devices are always handy, and improve productivity, allowing people to pursue alternative / additional means of income.

There were a couple of reasons for the people you focus on couldn't afford trucks / tractors, which have also been discussed.

Hyper-inflation and the destruction of the middle class and their savings was one.

Another not mentioned was the price controls by the regime, which forced out small farmers...

The drop in real wages, also contributed.

It has been shown to you, that the need for haulage grew throughout the period, even during the depression, even during the wage decreases, even in spite of the unfair competition and legal hindrances put in place by the railways.

It's fairly safe to say, that the economic policies of the regime were focused on making the rich richer, and exploiting the worker.

Germany needed more trucks, before Germany became fascist, and after it became fascist, it needed still more trucks. The lack of trucks, and the legal hindrances put in place to stifle competition with the railroads hindered economic activity and growth.

Those farmers that could afford a truck, improved their lot vastly. Those that couldn't suffered.

 

So you don't think that the need for all those horses would hurt the German farmer or the other countries they were taken from? WHy is it so hard for you to admit the truck is a better means to transport items.

 

Because then he would have to admit he is wrong...

 

Because he can get more done with the same output of labor.

It is also set in the 1920's.

Finally we arrive at the crux of the matter...Affordability...Not need.

If there was no "need", then why did the number of tractors in Germany triple between the years 1930-1940(20,000 to 60,000)?
Tractor numbers also tripled in England, doubled in Italy, and almost doubled in France.

Actually, the tractor situation began changing quite rapidly from 1945-1955, well before the 1962 start of the Mansholt Plan. By the mid-50's there were over 2 million tractors in Western Europe.

 

From Patton to tractors in one page or less...Gotta love tangents.

 

This was never the subject of the discussion : the subject of the discussion was

a ) would more trucks and less horses (more and less than in the OTL) have benefited the Gemans in 1941 and why ?

would more trucks in 1941 be possible ??

c) would it have been a wise decision to commit more MT in 1941 if this was possible and if it would have benefited the Germans


The answer on point b is negative,given that the decision to undertake Barbarossa was made late in the year and given the weak (= an euphemism) situation of the German automobile industry,which had structural causes.

The answer on point c is also negative,given that,without hindsight,more MT than was engaged in the OTL,was not needed .

The answer on point a is also negative because X thousand more trucks would not have changed the outcome of the war in the east : those who are claiming the contrary are creating a Wolkenkukuksheim where there was no opponent for the Wehrmacht .

Even LWD in post 386 admit that there is no certainty that more MT than was committed in the OTL would have given the Germans victory .

 

No, the answer on b has not been shown to be negative. The German automobile industry was shown to be exporting vehicles already in the interbellum. There was a need in Germany, which was being hindered by the policies of the Government, both prior to the Nazi take over of power, and after they took power.

The rest is just your idle speculation.

 

Horses or trucks, the question is now.

This question is rather relative. Just ask a Feldwebel encircled in the Cauldron somewhere near Stalingrad on the Christmas Eve1942 what he prefers: a fried truck tire or a horses steak?