Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,796
|
Some of my other hobbies...
Are model building and the study of WWII, particularly the arms, armor, aircraft, and other equipment used, by all sides. I have an extensive reference library, specializing in armor & small arms, and have a good friend who's library dwarfs mine, his specialty being aircraft, mostly.
Have never heard of that book you mention, but I do have lots of others, including ones written by the actual people involved, so I'm fairly confident of the accuracy of the information, cross checked with many other sources.
The history of the German war machine in WWII is a fascinating, complex and often bewildering story. Sometimes, it boggles the mind the obvious things they overlooked, or even forbid, balanced against some of the clear genius and innovation of some of their designs.
A great deal of effort was wasted in design and production of a bewildering array of vehicles, for example. And on top of the Nazi bureauacracy is Hitler himself, who made decisions on all kinds of things from overall campaign strategy to literally miniscule equipment designs.
When the rearming of the Wehrmacht began in earnest (1935), Hitler's plans were not to go to way before 1945. The navy would have been built up to where they actually could have cut off the convoy lifeline to England, instead of nearly being able to do so. The rest of the military would have been similarly powerful.
But that's not what happened. Hitler saw an opportunity, gambled, and went to war much earlier than planned for. And the Germans themselves were surprised at how successful they were, in the beginning. They had the resources and organization to conduct a "short, victorious war". SO did the Japanese. They didn't get it. What they got was a protracted fight against an enemy who would not surrender or condone an armistice. And so, after initial successes, things turned the other way for them, and lead to their ultimate defeat.
US manufacturing capacity, and our unique geographical position meant that our access to resources and industrial base was largely un-interruptable. That alone would have given the Allies the ultimate victory, but it was aided by numerous blunders wasting what resources the Axis had.
Also note that it took us almost two years from the actual start of our direct involvement in the war (free from interference with our industry and resources) to fully convert America to the "Arsenal of Democracy". And that our entire nation was actively involved, with rationing and resource collection drives (metal, rubber, etc.)
Example: in Germany, tanks were built by the makers of heavy equipment and locomotives. Firms with long experience building things slowly and "properly". In the US, while pre-war tanks were often built by these kinds of industry, we switched production over to the automotive industry, who had experience with building lots of units quickly. And we made a serious effort to maximize the ease of mass production.
On the other hand, some of the things the Germans learned from "modern" war they took advantage of more than we did. Small arms, being one example.
Prior to WWII, all nations built their arms the "old fashioned way". They built them like civilian guns. Wood & steel, fine machineing, capable of giving decades or longer of good service. Doing it this way takes time, money, and skilled craftsmen (another scarce resource). Modern mobile warfare eats things at unbelievable rates. Not just men, but their machines as well. The lesson it taught was that lots of "good enough" was better than fewer of "the best". And sometimes the "best" wasn't really the best, either.
Germany found out in WW I that the P.08 Luger wasn't all that good a combat pistol. But Germany armed their troops with them in WWII, not dropping production until 1942. Why? Because they had the machinery and skill to make them, and it wasn't until halfway through the war the cost/benefit shifted enough to make them abandon production in favor of other things. The MG 34 is a fine design, but the MG 42, with its stampings is cheaper faster,and easier to make, and works as well, if not better in combat.
The Mauser bolt action was "in the bank" so to speak, and all Germany needed to do was ramp up the production lines to have good, servicable bolt actions, in quantity. Much better for a dictator wanting an "instant" army than taking the time, and cost to develope a better (semiauto) rifle, and get the bugs worked out,and then get it in mass production.
When it comes down to it, the Germans were perhaps the greatest toymakers of WWII. But they wasted so much on making toys that either didn't work well, weren't used right, or didn't work any better than what was already in production that they never had as much of what was needed as they wanted, overall.
We made our share of boneheaded choices as well, but in the end, our's didn't hurt us as much as theirs did them.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
|