german engineering

panzerschmuck · 08-09-2006, 08:47 PM

Germany is often critisized (by historians) for over-engineering its equipment. Much of its equipment was considered the best of all the nations when it was working correctly, but that was the rub; the highly engineered stuff also required the most maintenance. At which point do you think Germany pushed the designs of their equipment further than it proved useful?

For me, the Tiger II comes instantly to mind, and possibly the Tiger I. They were far too hard to maintain, and the cost in man-hours and material to manufacture them could have been spent better elsewhere.

For that matter, what equipment from any nation was over-engineered?

MikB · 09-09-2006, 10:13 AM

They were already there decades before with the Luger pistol.

It isn't just in military equipment; in some cases it runs right through their engineering philosophy. I can remember 'Anglicising' some German tooling drawings at one place I worked at. I found I could reduce the number of components by 30% in some cases, and radically simplify many of those remaining. National trait; belt, braces and a piece of string, whether it really matters or not - I'm half German myself, so I feel entitled to make the comment.

Regards,
MikB

MikB · 11-09-2006, 06:25 PM

No takers? Hah!

Let's try this one, then:- I remember reading in Speer's book that after the severe mauling the USAAF took at the Schweinfurt raid (IIRC) Goering took Speer to inspect a downed US aircraft, saying something like: "The really distressing thing about this aeroplane is its quality...", pointing out features of the plane to him.

Does this mean that Germany's leaders had lost confidence in their own engineering, or was Goering just looking to set up future excuses for failure?

Regards,
MikB

von Poop · 11-09-2006, 06:39 PM

Sorry Mikb, bit of an echo in here.. seems most regulars have finally given up and mostly pottered over to the other forum. Hopefully things will pick up around here...

I recall a similar story of Rommel and co. inspecting the wreckage at the Kasserine pass and being startled at the interchangability and quality of the materiel left behind, it's all very well to over-engineer isn't it, but true technological quality in wartime surely lies in fitness for purpose and an admirable robustness, something a fair percentage of German equipment didn't really achieve, I feel this is what Speer refers to, makes me wonder how early he harboured deep doubts about being able to feed the Fuhrer's war machine.

Cheers,
Adam.

Kiwiwriter · 12-09-2006, 12:31 AM

That was one of the factors in the delay of the ME 262...they had all kinds of trouble with the metallurgy. And the engines had a life-span of 20 hours.

There were problems with the Panther, too.

panzerschmuck · 12-09-2006, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikB

No takers? Hah!

Let's try this one, then:- I remember reading in Speer's book that after the severe mauling the USAAF took at the Schweinfurt raid (IIRC) Goering took Speer to inspect a downed US aircraft, saying something like: "The really distressing thing about this aeroplane is its quality...", pointing out features of the plane to him.

Does this mean that Germany's leaders had lost confidence in their own engineering, or was Goering just looking to set up future excuses for failure?

Regards,
MikB

They had probably gotten so used to the crudeness of Soviet made equipment that it was distressing to know that they were now falling behind in quality as well as quantity.

MikB · 13-09-2006, 02:12 PM

Well, they'd known that the fighting quality of Soviet equipment was not to be trifled with since the first time they met T34s, KVs, YAKs and Sturmoviks.

Back to the overengineering theme. Perhaps the British experiment with duplex pistols for torpedo detonation was an example - the (fortunately) failed FAA attack on HMS Sheffield. The difference there was that the technological mistake could be rapidly reversed out and proven systems substituted. If the whole torpedo'd been designed around magnetic detonation....

Despite the large size and engineering complexity of their bigger tanks, I'm surprised the Germans never used gun stabilisers in quantity. Many a Sherman crew must have had reason to be grateful for these, coupled with the rapid turret traverse - two of the best things this tank had going for it.

Regards,
MikB

08-09-2006, 08:47 PM	#1 (permalink)
panzerschmuck Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 18	german engineering Germany is often critisized (by historians) for over-engineering its equipment. Much of its equipment was considered the best of all the nations when it was working correctly, but that was the rub; the highly engineered stuff also required the most maintenance. At which point do you think Germany pushed the designs of their equipment further than it proved useful? For me, the Tiger II comes instantly to mind, and possibly the Tiger I. They were far too hard to maintain, and the cost in man-hours and material to manufacture them could have been spent better elsewhere. For that matter, what equipment from any nation was over-engineered? Last edited by panzerschmuck; 08-09-2006 at 08:51 PM.

12-09-2006, 12:31 AM	#5 (permalink)
Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Newark, NJ, and Christchurch, NZ Posts: 2,431	German over-engineering That was one of the factors in the delay of the ME 262...they had all kinds of trouble with the metallurgy. And the engines had a life-span of 20 hours. There were problems with the Panther, too. __________________ "My intensity is intense." -- Roger Clemens "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." -- Winston Churchill. "I am not a hero. The heroes are all dead. I am a survivor." -- Sgt. William Guarnere, Easy Company, 506th Parachute Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. Check out my little contributions to World War II history at my web pages: World War II Plus 55 or http://davidhlippman.wildbillguarnere.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Irish Guards, 3 Bn. War Diary, June 1944 -	dbf	Unit Documents	98	12-10-2008 05:33 PM
THE WAFFEN-SS: Divisional Service History, Brigade/Battalion Unit List + Unit Notes.	Christos	Axis Units	74	30-05-2008 11:42 PM
Thoughts of Historians on German Generals:....Responce to Critics.	Christos	General	16	22-12-2007 10:36 PM
The Reich's Ex-leaders Explain Why They Were Beaten	spidge	General	11	10-11-2006 01:51 PM
The NIH in Italy - Part One- At War	Wise1	North Irish Horse	0	22-07-2006 01:15 AM

09-09-2006, 10:13 AM	#2 (permalink)
MikB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 170	They were already there decades before with the Luger pistol. It isn't just in military equipment; in some cases it runs right through their engineering philosophy. I can remember 'Anglicising' some German tooling drawings at one place I worked at. I found I could reduce the number of components by 30% in some cases, and radically simplify many of those remaining. National trait; belt, braces and a piece of string, whether it really matters or not - I'm half German myself, so I feel entitled to make the comment. Regards, MikB

11-09-2006, 06:25 PM	#3 (permalink)
MikB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 170	No takers? Hah! Let's try this one, then:- I remember reading in Speer's book that after the severe mauling the USAAF took at the Schweinfurt raid (IIRC) Goering took Speer to inspect a downed US aircraft, saying something like: "The really distressing thing about this aeroplane is its quality...", pointing out features of the plane to him. Does this mean that Germany's leaders had lost confidence in their own engineering, or was Goering just looking to set up future excuses for failure? Regards, MikB

11-09-2006, 06:39 PM	#4 (permalink)
von Poop I Like Tanks Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Perfidious Albion. Posts: 8,473	Sorry Mikb, bit of an echo in here.. seems most regulars have finally given up and mostly pottered over to the other forum. Hopefully things will pick up around here... I recall a similar story of Rommel and co. inspecting the wreckage at the Kasserine pass and being startled at the interchangability and quality of the materiel left behind, it's all very well to over-engineer isn't it, but true technological quality in wartime surely lies in fitness for purpose and an admirable robustness, something a fair percentage of German equipment didn't really achieve, I feel this is what Speer refers to, makes me wonder how early he harboured deep doubts about being able to feed the Fuhrer's war machine. Cheers, Adam.

13-09-2006, 02:12 PM	#7 (permalink)
MikB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 170	Well, they'd known that the fighting quality of Soviet equipment was not to be trifled with since the first time they met T34s, KVs, YAKs and Sturmoviks. Back to the overengineering theme. Perhaps the British experiment with duplex pistols for torpedo detonation was an example - the (fortunately) failed FAA attack on HMS Sheffield. The difference there was that the technological mistake could be rapidly reversed out and proven systems substituted. If the whole torpedo'd been designed around magnetic detonation.... Despite the large size and engineering complexity of their bigger tanks, I'm surprised the Germans never used gun stabilisers in quantity. Many a Sherman crew must have had reason to be grateful for these, coupled with the rapid turret traverse - two of the best things this tank had going for it. Regards, MikB

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)