Trucks...

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Hanny

ORIGINAL: MechFO


Unfortunately it needs a registration.

Feel free to copy paste or to show a reference to f.e. the 6.5 ton Opel Blitz. Showing how the rather classic 3 ton Opel Blitz weighed a negative 3.3 tons when empty would also work, I guess.

JSTOR is free to register. Feel free to pass further comment on something you clearly have not read, or understood.

You are earnestly asserting that the very basic and fundamental concepts of empty weight, carry capacity and total weight of a truck were somehow mixed up and then wrongly applied by the German army.

The assertion is both ridiculous and wrong. If you understood and are correctly representing the article, the good professor mixed things up in translation, had a bad day or maybe the deadline was a bit too tight. Either way that gem has been left buried in that journal for good reason.

Not treating every unreviewed, or even reviewed, article as the gospel truth on a particular subject matter is a good practice in general, the more outlandish the claim, the more caution required.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: Hanny

ORIGINAL: MechFO


Unfortunately it needs a registration.

Feel free to copy paste or to show a reference to f.e. the 6.5 ton Opel Blitz. Showing how the rather classic 3 ton Opel Blitz weighed a negative 3.3 tons when empty would also work, I guess.

JSTOR is free to register. Feel free to pass further comment on something you clearly have not read, or understood.

You are earnestly asserting that the very basic and fundamental concepts of empty weight, carry capacity and total weight of a truck were somehow mixed up and then wrongly applied by the German army.

The assertion is both ridiculous and wrong. If you understood and are correctly representing the article, the good professor mixed things up in translation, had a bad day or maybe the deadline was a bit too tight. Either way that gem has been left buried in that journal for good reason.

Not treating every unreviewed, or even reviewed, article as the gospel truth on a particular subject matter is a good practice in general, the more outlandish the claim, the more caution required.

Having done no such thing, i find im going to ignore you from now on as you have again failed to read the article or understand it or the maths in post 7.

Which in part shows in game by week 11 the Heer is still operating 99% of its start truck inventory, when Major-General Eduard Wagner informs AH 50% of the Heers trucks are out of service, truck and car numbers here https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... up&seq=314 which by Sept had 218k actual trucks, with a nominal 2.5 freight capacity, and 169k passenger cars with capacity of under a ton for passengers, giving it 713000 tons historically if it decides passengers can walk and instead carry freight, and all are in service, while in game it has a capacity of 1050000 tons and all are in service.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

German weight designation system for military trucks is the load capacity, not total weight. So a 3t truck would be able to load 3t of freight, a 1t truck just 1t of freight. This system is still in use by the Bundeswehr.

True, but by 44 Germany allocated fuel ration for the mission it was for, so Prof Hart is referring to the QM manual for fuel ration required for a loaded truck to x distance over w terrian type, not knowing the truck weight and its load means you cannot work out out its fuel requirement, for instance half freight load if the mission goes of road and on road, hence in 44 the QM reports refer to loaded weight, hence he is referencing the doubling capacity as it includes truck weight, W allies had no such fuel constraint and there QM reports only ever refer to carry capacity.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Hanny

ORIGINAL: MechFO

You are earnestly asserting that the very basic and fundamental concepts of empty weight, carry capacity and total weight of a truck were somehow mixed up and then wrongly applied by the German army.

The assertion is both ridiculous and wrong. If you understood and are correctly representing the article, the good professor mixed things up in translation, had a bad day or maybe the deadline was a bit too tight. Either way that gem has been left buried in that journal for good reason.

Not treating every unreviewed, or even reviewed, article as the gospel truth on a particular subject matter is a good practice in general, the more outlandish the claim, the more caution required.

Having done no such thing, i find im going to ignore you from now on as you have again failed to read the article or understand it or the maths in post 7.

ORIGINAL: Hanny
first because German trucks carry capacity includes the weight of the truck and load,

I trust you do have the ability to understand a simple sentence. Your own at that.

There is nothing wrong with making a mistake, but you should really not deny, misdirect and obfuscate once it is brought to your attention.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Hanny

ORIGINAL: Denniss

German weight designation system for military trucks is the load capacity, not total weight. So a 3t truck would be able to load 3t of freight, a 1t truck just 1t of freight. This system is still in use by the Bundeswehr.

True, but by 44 Germany allocated fuel ration for the mission it was for, so Prof Hart is referring to the QM manual for fuel ration required for a loaded truck to x distance over w terrian type, not knowing the truck weight and its load means you cannot work out out its fuel requirement, for instance half freight load if the mission goes of road and on road, hence in 44 the QM reports refer to loaded weight, hence he is referencing the doubling capacity as it includes truck weight, W allies had no such fuel constraint and there QM reports only ever refer to carry capacity.

This is it, really? Because fuel calculations were made for loaded weight trucks it means the QM section misunderstood and misapplied the term "carry capacity" for trucks? The professor was really having a bad day. Safe to say prior QM manuals worked off loaded weight for fuel calculations as well.

I've never seen fuel calculations for anything except loaded vehicles when planning movements, though I guess going by carry capacity works as well for transport units if the truck fleet is uniform or the planning allocation sufficently rough. Uniform truck fleet is probably the more important influence.

[malyhin1517]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

German weight designation system for military trucks is the load capacity, not total weight. So a 3t truck would be able to load 3t of freight, a 1t truck just 1t of freight. This system is still in use by the Bundeswehr.

Russians also use such a system! the main Soviet truck during the war, GAZ-AA, was called a "polutorka" one and a half because it had a carrying capacity of 1.5 tons!

[Bamilus]

ORIGINAL: Kokubokan

Recommended books for understand the German logistics in Barbarossa:


Germany and the Second World War. Vol IV The Attack on the Soviet Union. Part II, Chapter VI (Rolf-Dieter Müller) The failure of the economic "Blitzkrieg Strategy".

Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton. Martin Van Creveld. Chapter V Russian Roulette.

Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East. David Stahel. Chapter 3 The impossible equation - the logistics and supply of Barbarossa.

Historical Division US Army Europe. Monograph of Generalmajor Alfred Toppe. T-8 Problems of Supply in Far-Reaching Operations.

Historical Division US Army Europe. Monograph of Generalleutnant Max Hermann Bork. T-7 Comments on Russian Railroads and Highways.

From Peace to War. Germany, Soviet Russia and the World, 1939-1941. Klaus Schüler. The Eastern Campaign as a Transportation and Supply Problem.

The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich: A History of the German National Railway Volume 2: 1933–1945. Alfred C. Mierzejewski. Chapter 3.B The Attack on the Soviet Union and the Winter Crisis, 1941-1942.

In the midst of the mud slinging I wanted to say thank you for suggesting these. I've read Stahel and Supplying War: Wallenstein to Patton just landed on my doorstep last night. Will look into the others!

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

ORIGINAL: Kokubokan

Recommended books for understand the German logistics in Barbarossa:


Germany and the Second World War. Vol IV The Attack on the Soviet Union. Part II, Chapter VI (Rolf-Dieter Müller) The failure of the economic "Blitzkrieg Strategy".

Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton. Martin Van Creveld. Chapter V Russian Roulette.

Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East. David Stahel. Chapter 3 The impossible equation - the logistics and supply of Barbarossa.

Historical Division US Army Europe. Monograph of Generalmajor Alfred Toppe. T-8 Problems of Supply in Far-Reaching Operations.

Historical Division US Army Europe. Monograph of Generalleutnant Max Hermann Bork. T-7 Comments on Russian Railroads and Highways.

From Peace to War. Germany, Soviet Russia and the World, 1939-1941. Klaus Schüler. The Eastern Campaign as a Transportation and Supply Problem.

The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich: A History of the German National Railway Volume 2: 1933–1945. Alfred C. Mierzejewski. Chapter 3.B The Attack on the Soviet Union and the Winter Crisis, 1941-1942.

In the midst of the mud slinging I wanted to say thank you for suggesting these. I've read Stahel and Supplying War: Wallenstein to Patton just landed on my doorstep last night. Will look into the others!

agree, some of that list I really want to follow up

[jacktimes2]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[Kokubokan]

You´re welcome.

Historical Division US Army Europe. Monograph of Generalleutnant Max Hermann Bork. T-7 Comments on Russian Railroads and Highways.

http://dracobooks.com/Comments-on-Russian-Roads-and-Higways-by-Max-Bork.html

[Kokubokan]

Another...

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAMPHLET NO. 20-290, JULY 1951. TERRAIN FACTORS IN THE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN.

http://dracobooks.com/Terrain-Factors-in-the-Russian-Campaign.html

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: Kokubokan

I don't know a fighter pilot who has subsequently flown a transport/recon plane. Do you know any of them?

You asked this earlier.
All pilots were trained on Junkers to get their A pilot status, by C class and ready for first posting they were rated to fly Do17 He 11 Junkers 52, Arado 66, the Gotha 145 and the Arado 76, heavier aircraft like the Junkers W33 and W44 and the twin-engined Focke Wulf Fw 58, and obsolescent combat types such as the He 51, the Ar 65 and the Hs 123.

[Kokubokan]

ORIGINAL: Hanny

ORIGINAL: Kokubokan

I don't know a fighter pilot who has subsequently flown a transport/recon plane. Do you know any of them?

You asked this earlier.
All pilots were trained on Junkers to get their A pilot status, by C class and ready for first posting they were rated to fly Do17 He 11 Junkers 52, Arado 66, the Gotha 145 and the Arado 76, heavier aircraft like the Junkers W33 and W44 and the twin-engined Focke Wulf Fw 58, and obsolescent combat types such as the He 51, the Ar 65 and the Hs 123.

That doesn't answer my question.

[malyhin1517]

ORIGINAL: Kokubokan

I don't know a fighter pilot who has subsequently flown a transport/recon plane. Do you know any of them?

There were such cases when the pilots, after being wounded, could no longer fly in fighters and flew in transport or reconnaissance aircraft. But of course this was not a frequent occurrence!

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: Kokubokan

ORIGINAL: Hanny

ORIGINAL: Kokubokan

I don't know a fighter pilot who has subsequently flown a transport/recon plane. Do you know any of them?

You asked this earlier.
All pilots were trained on Junkers to get their A pilot status, by C class and ready for first posting they were rated to fly Do17 He 11 Junkers 52, Arado 66, the Gotha 145 and the Arado 76, heavier aircraft like the Junkers W33 and W44 and the twin-engined Focke Wulf Fw 58, and obsolescent combat types such as the He 51, the Ar 65 and the Hs 123.

That doesn't answer my question.

Your question shows you dont understand how pilots were trained in the LW.

It point out you dont get to be a fighter pilot until after you are qualified on recon and bombers, what do you think those not passing C and becomming fighter pilots get to fly?.Kurt Wüsthoff is an example of the german system of being recon first, and then becoming a fighter pilot, so was Ernst Udet.

[Kokubokan]

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

There were such cases when the pilots, after being wounded, could no longer fly in fighters and flew in transport or reconnaissance aircraft. But of course this was not a frequent occurrence!

Of course, but they were very rare cases.

That does answer my question. Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Hanny
All pilots were trained on Junkers to get their A pilot status...

Hummm...






Source: Fledgling Eagles. Luftwaffe Training Aircraft 1933-1945. Barry Ketley. Classic Publications, 2009.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: Kokubokan



Source: Fledgling Eagles. Luftwaffe Training Aircraft 1933-1945. Barry Ketley. Classic Publications, 2009.

https://www.militaryissue.com/mobile/Lu ... fo/706825/

The often unseen and unrecognized element in aerial warfare, is that of training the pilots and crews, yet it its value is beyond calculation. In this fundamental role, a wide variety of aircraft were used by the Luftwaffe, with trainee pilots progressing from simpler, older machines, such as the Klemm 35, the Focke-Wulf Fw 44 and the Bücker 131, to the more sophisticated Arado Ar 66, the Gotha Go 145 and the Arado Ar 76, as well as heavier aircraft like the Junkers W33 and W44.

So thats two books with you become rated at recon and may end up as a fighter, ill add this as its interesting, only ftr pilots were trained to fly just by instruments, which helps explain the high loss rate of the LW.

[Kokubokan]

ORIGINAL: Hanny



So thats two books with you become rated at recon and may end up as a fighter.

But not the other way around, which was my first question.

malyhin1517 has understood my question. You don't seem to understand the question. No problem.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: Kokubokan

ORIGINAL: Hanny



So thats two books with you become rated at recon and may end up as a fighter.

But not the other way around, which was my first question.

malyhin1517 has understood my question. You don't seem to understand the question. No problem.

I understood you asked a question that ought not be asked, and if you had read the book you used would have know the answer, including page 67 which references Junkers as the standard trainer in 1936.

[Kokubokan]

ORIGINAL: Hanny

only ftr pilots were trained to fly just by instruments

Nope.