Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 39 of 39
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities

  1. #31
    BD1
    BD1 is offline
    Seńor Contributor Senior Contributor BD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Nov 06
    Location
    estonia
    Posts
    2,811
    little research shows i had it backwards - the german locos were too wimpy for distances etc.
    For decades, perception of the big problem the Germans had with Soviet railroads when they invaded in 1941 was seen to have been converting their non-standard gauge (track width) to that of the central European norm. But that perception has been wrong, at least according to one recently declassified report. The document was written for the U.S. Army shortly after the war by Hans Klein, who served as the German army high command's "Technical Officer for Operational Railway Transportation" during 1941-42.

    Since the gauge conversion required going from the wider Soviet track to the narrower German, Klein explains, that change posed what was really the simplest of engineering problems for the invaders to solve. Along stretches where the retreating Soviets hadn't had time to thoroughly destroy the rail beds (which was most of the time during the blitzkrieg Barbarossa campaign), all the Germans had to do was pull up the spikes, move the rails toward each other a bit, and spike them down again. No surveying, blueprints, or new construction was needed.

    The real trouble was the Soviets built and ran wider (and longer and heavier) locomotives. Those locomotives, being so much bigger than their German counterparts, were therefore able to carry more fuel and water and thus could go much farther between service stops. For example, the average distance between Soviet service installations on the Brest-Litovsk to Moscow line was 138 kilometers. When the Wehrmacht moved in, their railway troops had to build from scratch one major service installation between each pair the Soviets already had in place. Those stations had to include locomotive sheds, repair shops, slag pits, turntables, sidings, water towers, etc., and needed skilled labor and scarce heavy equipment to complete them. (In comparison, track gauge conversion could usually be accomplished employing only primitively equipped conscript labor.) Almost none of this had been planned for, Klein says, and the resultant confusion and delay was the real drag on German railway utilization in the east in 1941.
    Soviet Railways in 1941
    Doktor likes this.
    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

  2. #32
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by BD1 View Post
    little research shows i had it backwards - the german locos were too wimpy for distances etc.


    Soviet Railways in 1941
    That doesn't make any sense, especially this part:

    "Those stations had to include locomotive sheds, repair shops, slag pits, turntables, sidings, water towers, etc., and needed skilled labor and scarce heavy equipment to complete them."

    Why would you need all that? All you would need if range was a problem was an extra tender and water tank wagon. German Locos did not need a major overhaul every 70 odd km travelled.

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    6,929
    Well, it was a war out there. Having an option to repair the locos as close as possible is certainly not a bad thing.

    What I don't get is, in the previous posts it was said that Germans had troubles with the SU rails because they couldn't carry the weight. Now it says the SU locos were robust and massive and more powerful then the Germans.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  4. #34
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Well, it was a war out there. Having an option to repair the locos as close as possible is certainly not a bad thing.

    What I don't get is, in the previous posts it was said that Germans had troubles with the SU rails because they couldn't carry the weight. Now it says the SU locos were robust and massive and more powerful then the Germans.
    BD1 said that the Germans found that their locos and rolling stock were to heavy for Russian railroads. I think that this refers the tons per axle ratings (or ground pressure per axle?). I think the the doco series 'World at War' Lawrence of Arabia narrates something along these lines.

    The German's couldn't load their trains as much as they did on their own lines. The Russian rail foudations weren't set out to the same standards as the Germans.

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    6,929
    Let me see, Russians had wider gauge, that couldn't sustain a lot of load per axle, but had bigger and heavier locos only in order to travel bigger distances.

    Germans had "weaker" locos, moved the gauges 85-90mm but couldn't redistribute the load in more cars.

    Why? Have I missed something?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  6. #36
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Let me see, Russians had wider gauge, that couldn't sustain a lot of load per axle, but had bigger and heavier locos only in order to travel bigger distances.

    Germans had "weaker" locos, moved the gauges 85-90mm but couldn't redistribute the load in more cars.

    Why? Have I missed something?
    It stands to reason that the Russian locos would be a bit heavier and larger than their german counterparts. Only due to having bigger water tanks and tenders to allow for the extra distances they had to cover.

    I don't believe that in terms of pulling power the German locos were weaker either. And I think that was the original point about the whole weight thing. In Germany a given cargo that could be moved by a 10 car train on German lines had to be redistributed into a 15 car train on Russian lines.
    Doktor likes this.

  7. #37
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    11,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Let me see, Russians had wider gauge, that couldn't sustain a lot of load per axle, but had bigger and heavier locos only in order to travel bigger distances.

    Germans had "weaker" locos, moved the gauges 85-90mm but couldn't redistribute the load in more cars.

    Why? Have I missed something?
    Locomotives have more axles than a rail car. A rail car has 8 contact points on 4 bogies. A typical Soviet locomotive was a 4-4-2 or a 4-6-0 which would be ten contact points. Locmotives got big- the Madam Queen topping in at 2-10-4 with 113,000lbs of tractive effort, or the 4-8-8-4 Big Boy.

  8. #38
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Romānia
    Posts
    1,684
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Most common Soviet fighter of the war the Yak-9 was made of aluminum.

    IL-2 and IL-10 Sturmovik were all aluminum

    Pe-2 all aluminum

    Tu-2 all aluminum

    Mig-7 and 9 aluminum

    la-7 aluminum wing spars

    Care to try again?
    Not really, even those that you dig up are not full metal air-frames as the LW got.

    yak 9 metal spars , wooden wing, late versions got all metal wing but the fuselage was not .
    il -2 had wooden wings until 1944.
    not familiar with the pe-2 and tu-2 , you might be correct.
    mig 7 and 9 ?? those are prototypes or aircraft that flew after the war
    la -7 appeared in 1944 and was still not full metal airframe.
    J'ai en marre.

  9. #39
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    11,558
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    Not really, even those that you dig up are not full metal air-frames as the LW got.

    yak 9 metal spars , wooden wing, late versions got all metal wing but the fuselage was not .
    il -2 had wooden wings until 1944.
    not familiar with the pe-2 and tu-2 , you might be correct.
    mig 7 and 9 ?? those are prototypes or aircraft that flew after the war
    la -7 appeared in 1944 and was still not full metal airframe.
    Still the loss of aluminum would heavily impact Soviet aviation.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 23 May 12,, 13:48
  2. Communist German/Soviet Pact against Allies in 1939
    By zraver in forum What-if discussions
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 10 Apr 12,, 16:25
  3. Future geopolitical realities: competition over scarce Resources
    By tantalus in forum International Defense and Terrorism Topics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 23 Nov 10,, 11:02
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 26 Mar 09,, 04:45
  5. Soviet vs. American Armies 1945
    By Longstreet63 in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 348
    Last Post: 11 Nov 06,, 17:40

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •