Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
nurgle

Biggest waste of spending in war

39 posts in this topic

So I want to know what is or would have been the biggest waste of spending in the war?

Im putting my money on the Ratte land cruiser tank or the Maus tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Atlantic Wall?

Iraq ?

40 Billion, possibly more considering damages for people loosing legs etc,

Private contractors, Blackwell, Xe, Private security, Oil transportation etc

Plus those paying to rebuild the city's they bombed :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iraq ?

40 Billion, possibly more considering damages for people loosing legs etc,

Private contractors, Blackwell, Xe, Private security, Oil transportation etc

Plus those paying to rebuild the city's they bombed :D

That made a lot of people a lot of money. Whereas the atlantic wall was a white elephant.

More thinking less ranting please, Voodoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That made a lot of people a lot of money. Whereas the atlantic wall was a white elephant.

More thinking less ranting please, Voodoo.

Atlantic wall made germans money too, imports via german controlled harbours ... and its quite widely reported germans stole / seized things from locals via this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atlantic wall made germans money too' date=' imports via german controlled harbours ... and its quite widely reported germans stole / seized things from locals via this.[/quote']

How did building a fortification that was bypassed save money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iraq ?

40 Billion, possibly more considering damages for people loosing legs etc,

Private contractors, Blackwell, Xe, Private security, Oil transportation etc

Plus those paying to rebuild the city's they bombed :D

I ment in world war two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In World War 1? Dreadnoughts.

More battleships were sunk by torpedos than by dreadnought rounds.

In World War 2? Post Dreadnought battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germans built 10,000 aircraft hulls without the engines to fly them. That has to be up there.

But something comes to mind that might be a bit off the beaten track.

The entire IJN, when they were not allowed to cut off war supplies going from the US to Russia.

Unconscionable. Unthinkable. Amazing waste of forces that were not allowed to control critical sea supplies.

Another waste was the strat bombing campaign. Ultimately not a waste to do it, but it could have been done with Mosquito type bombers with 10% of the bombload so something like 5% of the cost in blood and treasure we spent on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forced goods through ports i s'pose ?

Taxation.... ?

/Historical discussion fail.

FYI - Im talking about the massive defences they built around Calais.

Propoganda. Complete propaganda. But propaganda has a value too, to and extent.

P.s. The whole french coast thing and trade take could have been the biggest waste of spending in war, as regards the Germans taking control, as essentially that impact and control on trade in Europe (e.g. a great % of Atlantic European sea ports) made the economic situation of the US, not to mention the strategic importance and sea access, sonewhat unpalatable.

Edited by Smythes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atlantic wall made germans money too' date=' imports via german controlled harbours...[/quote']

Actually the Germans had no imports via their harbours, because the Royal Navy prevented this and had a blockade over their ports, hence why the Germans put such a heavy emphasis on Submarine warfare with their U-Boats.

Anyways these are my top 5 biggest wastes:

1) The Atlantic Wall - achieved nothing and could be destroyed or bypassed.

2) German Super Heavy Tank programs - they couldn't even move without breaking because of their heavy weight on such weak motors.

3) Railguns - Could only go where there was a railway (and often required multiple tracks due to their sheer width,) they were incredibly easy to locate from the ground and air, were incredibly heavy and required heavy duty locomotives to haul them, took ages to setup properly and couldn't sustain a reliable rate of fire, making it very easy for self propelled counter artillery to quickly setup and eliminate them.

4) Anti Tank Rifles - bullets from Anti Tank Rifles such as the PTRD, PTRS, T-Gewehr, PZB39, Boys etc could not penetrate the armour of nearly all armored vehicles, and needed to be fired from such a short range that you would be dead before you got close enough and on the right angle to fire and disable the tank or eliminate its crew.

5) Battleships - carrier based aircraft and submarines dispatched them incredibly easily before they could even realize their foe was there, as the Japanese found out the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but it could have been done with Mosquito type bombers with 10% of the bombload so something like 5% of the cost in blood and treasure we spent on that.

Ive seen this suggestion before, but im not convinced it would have been effective and would have entailed high losses fror such low level accuracy.

Certainly the attacks on Gestapo headquarters may have yielded results from highly accurate bombing:

INF3_1273.jpg

But I would question the ability to do this at night and in the face of effective enemy defences (e.g. prior to June 1944 and the death of the Luftwaffe)

Not to mention the skill required of the pilots - not everyone is a successful low level bomber and I would argue that heavy bombers were flown by a lowest common decominator, that you do not have a lot of good pilots, but a lot of effective pilots, which can be very different to the skills required for effective low level operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good question.

lots of perameters to think about. misplaced resources by Germany would have made up a larger % of its total capacity as opposed to the USA.

You'd gravitate to the Germans for your answer cuz they lost, and would help explain why.

Certainly if Germany continued to develop only its pz3's and 4's, instead of resources used on heavies and super heavies, they probably would have been better off for it.

The Atlantic wall really didnt cost much as far as$ and resources. Slave labor and concrete isnt that expensive.

Sure you could go around it, but then it kinda did its job, making you go around instead of a more direct route.

From a $ standpoint, the German rocket program was probably the biggest financial drain that accomplished very little tactically, although it scared the sh*t out of England, and killed a whack of civilians, it didn't help Germany in any way. It provided a false hope that led to more resources being poured into it.

V2 launch sites were easilly detected and pounded by air almost immediately after being found.

kidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spending wise im not entirely sure the costs of it but i believe it was called the "maginot line" , the string of fortifications that went accross the border of France and Germany, i will say that was a complete waste of french resources ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spending wise im not entirely sure the costs of it but i believe it was called the "maginot line" ' date=' the string of fortifications that went accross the border of France and Germany, i will say that was a complete waste of french resources ha[/quote']

I actually disagree with this.

The Maginot line worked fantastically.

Too well in fact. It was designed to be a deterrent against an attack through the region. Worked quite well.

Germans had to attack through a different area to defeat it.

Had France deployed their forces better, they Maginot line not only would have made a certain region impassible to German forces, it could very well have been a game changer in terms of allowing allied forces to mass in Belgium.

The problem was France screwed it all up at Sedan.

End of story. Maginot line gets beat on a lot but it wasn't as worthless as some think it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive seen this suggestion before, but im not convinced it would have been effective and would have entailed high losses fror such low level accuracy.

Certainly the attacks on Gestapo headquarters may have yielded results from highly accurate bombing:

INF3_1273.jpg

But I would question the ability to do this at night and in the face of effective enemy defences (e.g. prior to June 1944 and the death of the Luftwaffe)

Not to mention the skill required of the pilots - not everyone is a successful low level bomber and I would argue that heavy bombers were flown by a lowest common decominator, that you do not have a lot of good pilots, but a lot of effective pilots, which can be very different to the skills required for effective low level operations.

Hmm, although certainly many who have pushed the Mosquito are talking precision intruder bombing, Im not.

Im talking about the USSBS and the finding that the power system could have been collapsed with 10% of the bombs dropped against other targets. So that figure has nothing to do with increased accuracy.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/October%202011/1011USSBS.aspx

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#ep

The dirty little secret spelled out in hard numbers-

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/Hansell/Hansell-A.html

How the mistake came to happen, even though in the initial targeting plan it was #1. War by committee- sometimes it sucks.

http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/griffith.pdf

I come by the 50% of 10% yielding 5% of the effort cost figure with using Mosquitos because they required half as many engines and far less crew which is less training and less blood, used wooden construction which yielded weight and resource benefits, and counted on speed rather then armament for survival.

4.95 times cheaper then the Lancaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operational_history

Mosquitos had on average cruising and max speeds in excess of 70mph over B-17s, and max speeds in excess of 400mph, comparable with FW190s.

This also means less fuel used per ton- a B17 was something like 11-13 tons of fuel at takeoff.

Of course, this is little comfort to crews getting hit by 20s in a wooden plane.

The Achilles heel to the scheme is the Mosquito range, but many of the relevant targets were in Western Germany and so possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Maginot Line wasn't that big a waste. The thing several people forget was that the Maginot Line was in fact quite successful in the Alpine Region (the Alpine Line as it is often called, but is part of the Maginot Line,) where it actually proved a very formidable defense network against the Italian invasion of France. Italy didn't manage to pull that much progress at all during the invasion, and the fortifications were quite well placed among the various natural chokepoints and such that resulted with the Alps. Of course, stopping Italy didn't stop Germany! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Maginot Line wasn't that big a waste. The thing several people forget was that the Maginot Line was in fact quite successful in the Alpine Region (the Alpine Line as it is often called' date=' but is part of the Maginot Line,) where it actually proved a very formidable defense network against the Italian invasion of France. Italy didn't manage to pull that much progress at all during the invasion, and the fortifications were quite well placed among the various natural chokepoints and such that resulted with the Alps. Of course, stopping Italy didn't stop Germany! :D[/quote']

Actually the Maginot Line worked perfectly well.

It's function was to make up for the manpower problem France faced, the 'Empty Years' brought on by genocidal losses in WWI, and a resultant low birth rate. So the French needed a firepower multiplier in keeping the wolf away from the door, and the Line was it.

http://www.strategypage.com/cic/docs/cic66b.asp

And, it worked. The Germans surveyed the Maginot Line during the run up to the Battle of France and decided they wanted nothing to do with it.

The problem was, the French stuck about half their force behind the Line, and very little along the hinge, and no reserves, which should have been at or to the south of 'our' map.

Even given the command and control problems, the horrid doctrine, the logistical network overwhelmed by speed and tempo, if the French had posted those divisions in reserve positions behind their lines and used the line as the manpower saver it was built for, the Germans likely could not have slogged through them.

In Understanding War, Dupuy does an analysis of a 1940 BofF with DeGaulle's posture instead, using QJM which among other things predicted the low casualty rate of the US in Desert Storm, and found the Germans would have lost, primarily with this single move.

The irony is that the French lost largely because they DIDN'T trust in the Maginot Line.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In World War 1? Dreadnoughts.

More battleships were sunk by torpedos than by dreadnought rounds.

In World War 2? Post Dreadnought battleships.

Someone doesn't understand fleets-in-being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's difficult to read anything about the WW2 Western Front bombing campaign and not come away feeling it was a terrible wasted effort

Before I read about it, I'd have defended Harris to the hilt thinking that to not do so was dishonouring the brave men who took part in the campaign. But the reverse is probably true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I read about it, I'd have defended Harris to the hilt thinking that to not do so was dishonouring the brave men who took part in the campaign. But the reverse is probably true.

How do you value politics?

The political benefits of the Allied bombing offensive was that it was a way of showing support to Russia as a "Second Front" that Stalin was mad for in 1942, yet the Allied Build-up was only just beginning (Op Bolero). Operations such as Sledgehammer and Round Up were considered but were far from practical.

It was the only way the Allied side could show solidarity and in that sense has some non-quantifable benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you value politics?

The political benefits of the Allied bombing offensive was that it was a way of showing support to Russia as a "Second Front" that Stalin was mad for in 1942, yet the Allied Build-up was only just beginning (Op Bolero). Operations such as Sledgehammer and Round Up were considered but were far from practical.

It was the only way the Allied side could show solidarity and in that sense has some non-quantifable benefits.

The Original Post insinuates a monetary value. If you dilute it into politics and every branch in between, there are too many variables to consider.

Based on $, and $ only. I stick with the German Rocket program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Original Post insinuates a monetary value. If you dilute it into politics and every branch in between, there are too many variables to consider.

True - and valid point.

It has recently been suggested that 3 - 6 months delay was put on German production after the RAF Bomber Commands Ruhr campaign, whilst actually being one of the only things that forced Speer too loose his cool, which I think says how effective it actually was.

Note the strategy was the issue, as Harris moved the target to Berlin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.