German panzers given to Romania

[tempesta]

Thank you for information.
It seems that in 1943 both Romania and Hungary were in such a situation that they accepted even totaly warn out machines.

[luer]

Csaba,
when it comes to military, I do NOT have any obsessions.
I only have opinions.

Luer.

[Csaba Becze]

Ok

[PanzerKing]

The Pz 38s would have made good infantry support vehicles I suppose, but I'd be scared they'd attract enemy armor.

The thing I don't understand is, Germany was producing a large number of tanks (3,000+ Panzer IV's in 1944 alone), what difference would it have made if they had 200 less? None! I think it would have been worse because their allies couldn't fight on equal terms.

[tarzy]

QUOTE

The Pz 38s would have made good infantry support vehicles I suppose, but I'd be scared they'd attract enemy armor. The thing I don't understand is, Germany was producing a large number of tanks (3,000+ Panzer IV's in 1944 alone), what difference would it have made if they had 200 less? None! I think it would have been worse because their allies couldn't fight on equal terms.

the number of tanks produces is not necesarly equal with number of tanks fully operating, more of this tank had been destroyed during the transportation.

[dragos]

QUOTE

The thing I don't understand is, Germany was producing a large number of tanks (3,000+ Panzer IV's in 1944 alone), what difference would it have made if they had 200 less? None! I think it would have been worse because their allies couldn't fight on equal terms.

You can't put it in this way. The Germans kept producing thanks in a desperate atempt to maintain the balance of forces on the front. Even if they apparently produced a great number of tanks, it was never enough to keep the edge over the enemy and even to cover their own losses. There was not a single tank to spare without a very good reason.

[Csaba Becze]

I don't agree with you. Sometimes the Germans wasted their panzers. A classical example: in august, 1944 they sent more, than 70 Pz IV's to Bulgaria. The Hungarians begged for this tanks(to change the Turáns with 40 mm guns), but the Germans refused the Hungarian asking. One week later Bulgaria changed their allies and in early 1945 used this tanks against the Germans (evidently the Hungarians wanted to use this tanks against the Red Army, but Bulgaria not at all - what do you think, this was not wasting??)

[PanzerKing]

QUOTE

QUOTE The thing I don't understand is, Germany was producing a large number of tanks (3,000+ Panzer IV's in 1944 alone), what difference would it have made if they had 200 less? None! I think it would have been worse because their allies couldn't fight on equal terms. You can't put it in this way. The Germans kept producing thanks in a desperate atempt to maintain the balance of forces on the front. Even if they apparently produced a great number of tanks, it was never enough to keep the edge over the enemy and even to cover their own losses. There was not a single tank to spare without a very good reason.

Of course I can put it this way. Which is better: having a hole or weak spot in your line because your ally has no suitable armor, or sacrificing 200 of your own tanks (they'll be used eventually anyways) to have a more stable front?

[dragos]

QUOTE

I don't agree with you. Sometimes the Germans wasted their panzers. A classical example: in august,  1944 they sent more, than 70 Pz IV's to Bulgaria.

Honestly, I don't know the reason why they sent (sold?) these tanks to Bulgaria. Maybe you enlighten me on this.

QUOTE

Of course I can put it this way. Which is better: having a hole or weak spot in your line because your ally has no suitable armor, or sacrificing 200 of your own tanks (they'll be used eventually anyways) to have a more stable front?

The Romanian Army or the other allies of Germany were not the only weak spots of the Axis' front. In the last years of war, most of the German divisions were severely lacking manpower and equipment, often under half strength. Many German division were always needing new tanks. And the operations didn't limit to southern sector.

[Csaba Becze]

dragos: ask the Germans, I dunno why...

[PanzerKing]

QUOTE

QUOTE I don't agree with you. Sometimes the Germans wasted their panzers. A classical example: in august,  1944 they sent more, than 70 Pz IV's to Bulgaria. Honestly, I don't know the reason why they sent (sold?) these tanks to Bulgaria. Maybe you enlighten me on this. QUOTE Of course I can put it this way. Which is better: having a hole or weak spot in your line because your ally has no suitable armor, or sacrificing 200 of your own tanks (they'll be used eventually anyways) to have a more stable front? The Romanian Army or the other allies of Germany were not the only weak spots of the Axis' front. In the last years of war, most of the German divisions were severely lacking manpower and equipment, often under half strength. Many German division were always needing new tanks. And the operations didn't limit to southern sector.

You ever heard of Stalingrad? I don't think Romania was the strong point in the defense line. Just how would having tanks about this time be a bad idea?

[dragos]

Before Stalingrad: The German had no reason to help Romanian Army because they were confident in their strength. For them, Romanian Army was not crucial for the achievment of their goals.

At Stalingrad: The Germans seem not to be aware by the gravity of the situation. So why to reinforce the Romanian Army if they did not expect any trouble from the Soviets ?

After Stalingrad: The Germans started to regard Romanian Army as being responsible for the disaster. For them, Romanian Army was inferior in every aspect. Also, this is the point when the German Army itself started to shatter and needed war production as air.

[Geto-Dacul]

Bulgaria was the classical example of a fruitless ally... Appart of the weak anti-partisan war, I do not see anything productive from Bulgaria to the Axis cause. Bulgaria was USSR's "agent" in the Balkans. Regarding the panzers it received, it's a shame. :x

[johnny_bi]

Csaba wrote:

QUOTE

Just another example. What do you think, why got Hungary a sqadron Tiger I in late spring, 1944? I know your answer: \"the balance of power\"...   In fact they got, because Model said: they distinguished themselves particularly during panzer battles and got this tanks as a gift for their valour.

According to http://www.hungary.com/corvinus/lib/montgo...o/montgo15.htm:
"On March 20, 1944, at dawn, German storm troops surrounded the prime minister's home and Gestapo agents forcibly entered his apartments. By then he had fled to the Turkish legation where he had been invited by the Turkish government to take refuge.

Meanwhile Horthy - - the safety of whose family, including a three- year- old grandson, had been threatened if he did not co- operate - - put off nominating a new government. He yielded only after Hitler had promised to restore Hungary's sovereignty if she received a "trustworthy regime."

Maybe this is the reason the Hungarians got those tigers.

[Csaba Becze]

QUOTE

Csaba wrote: QUOTE Just another example. What do you think, why got Hungary a sqadron Tiger I in late spring, 1944? I know your answer: \"the balance of power\"...   In fact they got, because Model said: they distinguished themselves particularly during panzer battles and got this tanks as a gift for their valour. According to http://www.hungary.com/corvinus/lib/montgo...o/montgo15.htm: "On March 20, 1944, at dawn, German storm troops surrounded the prime minister's home and Gestapo agents forcibly entered his apartments. By then he had fled to the Turkish legation where he had been invited by the Turkish government to take refuge. Meanwhile Horthy - - the safety of whose family, including a three- year- old grandson, had been threatened if he did not co- operate - - put off nominating a new government. He yielded only after Hitler had promised to restore Hungary's sovereignty if she received a "trustworthy regime." Maybe this is the reason the Hungarians got those tigers.

?????