Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Why the German Army couldn't overcome their bad logistics" video.

Nice response. I think the issue with Germany in WW2 is that they acted too much like a feudal system, and did not have a properly centralized and controlled manufacturing and supply system. The US and USSR both had these, which is why they could out-produce their opponent and keep their forces, on average, better supplied than their German counterparts.
16
TIK, you overlook the fact that the Soviet Union made better use of their scarce resources, and ended up with better logistics than the Wehrmacht. And Japan, not a socialist society, had arguably the worst logistics of any of the warring parties. The reason why the Americans did better than Germany with their logistics was not because of capitalism, but because the American's experience during the Civil War showed them the importance of making logistics a priority. The US Army assigned large numbers of troops to provide logistical support for their fighting units. Indeed, one of the main members on any Army commander's staff was the logistics officer.The Germans, on the other hand, placed little importance on logistics. They didn't have logistics officers in such prominent positions. They were used to fighting short campaigns where their lack of emphasis on logistical support didn't come back to bite them. This is why they always struggled with prolonged campaigns like North Africa and Russia. They simply lacked the logistical "tail" to keep a consistent steady supply of material and reinforcements to the front. Both Germany and Japan had warrior cultures, where fighting prowess was the most important thing. Who thinks of the importance of pen-pushers in a society that elevates Siegfried or the Samurai to being the pinnacle of existence? Capitalism doesn't enter into this at all.
3
@agentorange6085 No, this is not 'Crazy Man TIK'. It is more along the lines of him being trained in economic theory, but then trying to apply a theory he supports to the real world. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't (of which I think this is one that doesn't work). People often get dogmatic when adhering to certain philosophies or ideas (whether they have a university degree or not), and end up trying to fit square pegs into round holes. It often happens when the person is too close to the problem - they don't step back and seriously look at what they are proposing. I have worked and spoken with enough research scientists and seen this occur on numerous occasions, so I can recognize when this is happening.
3
Sounds like the something the "Devil's Brigade" did.
3
They were thinking outside the box.
3
@micfail2 Sorry, the M-47 Dragon AT Missile didn't come into service until 1975.
2
@agentorange6085 Well, none of us are inflammable, err, infallible. Everyone makes mistakes, and putting out a second video in the week means less time to check for errors. Besides, I know from my own experience that when you write something, it can be difficult to spot your own mistakes. That's why, before committing something for posterity, I try to ask someone else to read what I have written.
2
@antoinemozart243 Not sure which comment you are referring to here. I try to base all my responses on researched facts and careful analysis, as well as personal experience. And I am not afraid to admit if I am proven wrong by the facts.
2
@johnwolf2829 Possibly, as it would have given the men time to rest, replacements to reach the units and be trained, and for supplies to be stockpiled closer to the front. On the down side it would have given the Red Army time to move in reinforcements as well, and dig in. So it would have been a bit of a trade-off.
2
I don't know, the traffic circles might have caused issues as well.
2
@costakeith9048 A book I suggest that covers this topic is Overy's "Why the Allies Won". It deals quite extensively with the fact that the Germans, having captured French industrial capacity, did nothing with it. In fact, they partially gutted it, ruining any chance of becoming an industrial superpower! They also did not start ramping up production of any war materiel until 1943, too late the affect the issue. There are many other examples of how German logistical incompetence helped to hinder their war effort. And thank goodness they did so.
2
About your comment at 28:02. Both France and Britain faced the exact same dilemma. In 1939-1940, France recruited so many workers that it had to actually recall soldiers from the front lines to the factories to keep industry going. In Britain in 1943-1945, many young men who were drafted ended up working in the coal mines (Bevin's Boys). This speaks more to the German's depleted manpower base than not using capitalist methods to determine where people should be assigned.
2
@WheelsRCool It also didn't help that they 'ripped off' a large percentage of the transport in Europe to supply the needs for the army instead of building their own. I don't know how many vehicle manufacturers there were in Europe at the time, but if what Overy says is correct, there must have been a fair number of them. I think Overy quotes something like 90 different truck types, all needing different spare parts.
2
Something that I should have mentioned before - NO construction job or activity EVER counts every screw, nut, bolt, piece of plywood, etc., required to do a job. You always buy in units, in bulk. Supplies purchased for every piece of work done on my house has been done this way. It is the same with supplying front line units. Logistics staffs figure out the daily consumption rates and then order units of supply accordingly (5,000 boxes of bullets containing x number of rounds each, 5,000 gallons of fuel, 15,000 rations, etc.). This is why you often see tonnage required per division as an indicator of logistics, and why supplies are usually listed as units, not physical numbers. However, no matter how you slice it, the German Armies were constantly running out of fuel, running low on ammo, lacking spare parts to fix equipment. This shows conclusively that their logistics, and the planning to continuously supply their offensives, quite frankly sucked!
2
@TheImperatorKnight If the statistics that Richard Overy presents in "Why the Allies Won" are correct, this is only part of the story. Yes, Lend-Lease gave the Russians the boots, trucks and food they needed to go onto the offensive. However, the Russians produced more equipment with fewer raw materials than the Germans did, and got more of it to the front than the Germans did even in 1941. They were able to move a large proportion of their factories beyond the reach of the Germans in 1941, a feat that I doubt the Germans could have replicated. I think the issue with German logistics was something you touched on but may not have fully explored, that being the huge number of "satrapies" created within the Wehrmacht and German industry. Everyone in the Third Reich was "empire building", so rather than having a unified manufacturing and supply system, you had a bunch of little fiefdoms all scrambling for the same resources. This lead to a rat's nest of conflicting priorities and massive inefficiencies. There was no real centralized planning, which is what happened in the Soviet Union and, ironically enough, in the United States. It is something that Speer tried, with some success, to fix in 1943 and 1944. This is perfectly illustrated with your description of the chain of command at 4:26 in the video. I mean, seriously, why wasn't there a 3rd person at railhead in charge of distributing the supplies to the units as required, rather than QM General Wagner (whom I suspect was back in Germany)? Why should the general in charge of supplying the army be saddled with the minutia of which unit gets what? Why should the Luftwaffe have a completely different system separate from the Army one vying for the same transportation links? This chain of command makes absolutely no sense at all! However, it does fit with the Nazi ideology, as exemplified by Hitler's inner circle, of creating competing entities that fight one another for some resource (including access to Hitler), preventing any one entity becoming too powerful. And, in my opinion, it also fits with the explanation that the Germans didn't plan for extended campaigns or wars, and thus overlooked the importance of a rational logistical system to supply their army over the long haul.
1
29:05 Trying to discuss the sanity of a bunch of homicidal fanatics is rather pointless. As far as the Nazis went, sanity and logic need not apply. They didn't care. They would likely have justified what they were doing by pointing out that there were fewer mouths to feed, so German agriculture would be more able to feed the German people. And think of the overall savings in fuel and electricity without these people being around to use it. If you work these people to death, they are still contributing to the economy, and you don't need to pay them. Plus, you can then refill those position with people who are out of work and perhaps achieve zero unemployment as a bonus.
1
@MrProsat If you have the chance, you should read Citino's "The German Way of War". I think he covers this quite nicely.
1
@dorlonelliott9368 Well put!
1