German panzers given to Romania

[luer]

lots of topics to discuss here....

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.

There is a simple explanation:
Only in 1943, Germany's war-production started to work really efficiently, with more tanks produced in 1943 than in the 4 years of war before. (In 44, production was again increased.)

But, Germany gave tanks to Romania then, 120+ (129?) PzIV and 108 StuGs in 43-44.

So comparing 44 production with 42 deliveries is not quite valid, I believe.

QUOTE

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?

The real weak point were the Germans who had knowingly completely overextended their frontline. I don't think Germans would have held the line either. In some other posts, I wrote about Stalingrad and the German attitude. Additionally, the Germans actually had own Panzer troops behind the ROmanian lines there, 22nd Panzer, which was down to very few tanks with very low serviceability. We know the outcome.

QUOTE

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.

Fruitless for who ? Definetely not for the Bulgarians who would have suffered an equal ordeal like the other Axis Allies on the EF. in a war that was not theirs.
I have no idea why they got those tanks. They definetely paid for them and I don't how worn they were and what type.

But, one has to remember that Hungary and Romania (over N.Transsylvania) were not the only ones that had covert conflicts among the Axis Allies. Bulgaria and Romania had had a problem over Dobrogea that B. got in 1940. Slovakia and HUngary had a little border war, too. So Germany had a problem. But I won't say the BoP word now, don't feel like FlaK today.

L.

[Geto-Dacul]

luer wrote :

QUOTE

Fruitless for who ?

Fruitless for Germany's cause and war.

QUOTE

I have no idea why they got those tanks. They definetely paid for them and I don't how worn they were and what type.

Those tanks were finally used against Germany!

Getu'

[PanzerKing]

Luer, those are interesting points. Thanks for pointing my error.

[Csaba Becze]

I don't think, that the Bulgarians paid for this tanks. Maybe it was a barter - they got this tanks as a compenstaion for Bulgarian stuffs. Actually the Germans had huge debts for his allies (especially for Hungary; and it was never give back to Hungary!)

BTW evidently, that the Bulgarians had their own politics (as the Finns, Rumanians, Hungarians, Italians, etc)

I mentioned this just as an example (wasting the German AFV's)

[Tony E.]

The booklet about Bulgarian armoured vehicles 1935-45 by Kaloyan Matev mention that the vehicles were paid for in both cash and bartered goods.

[Florin]

QUOTE

...and rightfully so...! If the Germans were giving Panthers to their faithfull allies at this late stage of the war....why did the Russians did not provide us with Josef Stalin 2 heavy tanks or KV-85...to \"reward\" us for having allied ourselves with the \"valiant red army\" and for having been \"liberated from the fascist chains\"?   Did they give us their lates tanks? NO! ... ...and they had tousands of them too...not like the germans.. :wink:   :idea:

Hi,

Should I tell you a good one?

Two operational Tiger I tanks, abandoned by their German crews in the aftermath of August 23rd (due to lack of fuel), were first captured by the Romanians. But soon they were forcefully confiscated by the Russians...

Florin

[Florin]

QUOTE

...... Actually the Germans had huge debts for his allies (especially for Hungary; and it was never give back to Hungary!).......

Hi,

Can you be more specific about your mentioning of the German-Hungarian economical exchanges? Can you prove what you wrote?

About Romania:
In early 1945 the Deutche Bank prepared a detailed report about the status of German-Romanian economic balance. The debts were sensible equal, with a slightly bigger debt on the Romanian behalf.
Source: "Hitler, King Carol and Marshall Antonescu", translated to Romanian after 1990.

Florin

[Florin]

QUOTE

QUOTE 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. Fruitless for who ? Definetely not for the Bulgarians who would have suffered an equal ordeal like the other Axis Allies on the EF. in a war that was not theirs. .......Bulgaria and Romania had had a problem over Dobrogea that B. got in 1940. L.

Bulgaria did not get all Dobrogea in 1940. However, despite of the fact that Romania gave that land away under Axis pressure, and Romania later fought almost 10 months as a Soviet ally, Romania did not recuperate the teritory after 1945.

Florin

[luer]

QUOTE

However, despite of the fact that Romania gave that land away under Axis pressure, and Romania later fought almost 10 months as a Soviet ally, Romania did not recuperate the teritory after 1945.

well, Bulgaria fought as Soviet Ally, too PLUS they had not joined the war against the USSR. So kind of not much of a surprise that they did not get it back.

I only mentioned the Dobrogea because of my opinion of Germany's policy to maintain a balance of power between her Allies.

l.

[Florin]

QUOTE

well, Bulgaria fought as Soviet Ally, too PLUS they had not joined the war against the USSR. So kind of not much of a surprise that they did not get it back.   I only mentioned the Dobrogea because of my opinion of Germany's policy to maintain a balance of power between her Allies.

I agree about the Germany's interest to have equilibrium between her Allies.

I think the reasons for Bulgaria keeping that area were:

1. In 1945-1946, every country was tired of war and nobody wanted any more trouble. Then, starting with 1947, it was the time for Soviet Union to want equilibrium between her new Allies. Bulgaria became a "front line" country regarding Western territorial domination, like Hungary, Czechoslovakia and later Eastern Germany. Soviet Union was more generous with her "front line" Allies than to the others.

2. Bulgaria is a Slavic nation, related with the Slavic nations of Soviet Union, and the Bulgarians used the Slavic alphabet during their history, including the 20th century. A feeling of "brotherhood" always existed between the Russian nation and the Bulgarians and the Serbs.

3. Then, as you said, Soviet Union couldn't forget the magnitude of Romania's involvement on the Eastern Front. I think the fact that a small country as Romania had the bulk of her army traveling as far as the Caucasus Mountains was a big unpleasant surprise for the Soviet leadership, and without the last 10 months of fighting alongside them who knows what other punishment Romania would have.

4. Returning to "check and balance" policy, even without the southern part of Dobrogea Romania is still twice the size of Bulgaria, or twice the size of Hungary, so from a Russian point of view, why help Romania to become even bigger?

Florin

[Der Maresal]

QUOTE

2. Bulgaria is a Slavic nation, related with the Slavic nations of Soviet Union, and the Bulgarians used the Slavic alphabet during their history, including the 20th century. A feeling of \"brotherhood\" always existed between the Russian nation and the Bulgarians and the Serbs.   Florin

I like the fact that we are not slavs, being of different origin then most of your neighbours surrounding you make you feel..well :roll: ..better!

*Reading one of David Irvings books I came across a phrase which Antonescu told Hitler before the War with Russia...

"If you go to war against the Slavs,
you can Always count on Romania!"

[Florin]

QUOTE

I like the fact that we are not slavs, being of different origin then most of your neighbours surrounding you make you feel..well :roll: ..better!  :o   *Reading one of David Irvings books I came across a phrase which Antonescu told Hitler before the War with Russia... \"If you go to war against the Slavs,   you can Always count on Romania!\"

The average Slavic person is in no way better or worse than the average person of any other nation. One day any person will regard himself / herself as a citizen of the planet, but we will not leave enough to see it.

Well, as we learned at school, the Romanian nation is "an island of Latinity".
So, at least from some points of view, we are different compared with our neighbors. If this makes us better or worse, it is arguable, and depending on who is the judge.

My personal point of view about the Latin nations is that they have some very brilliant individuals, very often the best in their field, but as a whole the Germanic nations (including Anglo-Saxon) seem to be more efficient and more successful. Also the Russian nation was always underestimated and for that the Westerners paid dearly: in 1721, 1812 and 1942.

Fortunately for Romania, for the moment the Islamic threat is more important for the Western civilization than the interference in our area and reshaping Eastern Europe.
In the long run Romania has to stay away as far as possible from the possible confrontations between Russia and the West. The last sentence I added because you used that quote from David Irving.

Regards,
Florin

[SethG]

Can I bring this back on topic? I'm fascinated by the discussion of whose double-dealing, so called 'ally' treated which other serf less badly, but I'm curious about the tanks. I see from other sources that 10 or so Pz. IVs were received before Stalingrad, where they were lost. I assume these were probably F1's. When was the first lot of long barrel IVs received? I assume from the mish-mash of types that these were used, and that just about any variety could be accurate. Did any of these tanks have schurzen? The StuG III's were F/8's, or were they short barreled? Were any other varieties received? I have heard that some Panthers were given to the Romanians after the war by their 'friends', the Russians. Is this true?
Seth

[dragos]

There are a quite a lot of variants of Panzers mentioned here and there, but the photographic material I know of, confirms only the use of IIIN, IVG, IVH, Stug IIIG.

This is one delivered in the first lot of Panzer IV:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/foto/?id=146&area=...=21&language=en[/url]

[SethG]

Thanks. Would these have been called T-4H or T-4G? Or was no distinction made? Were the G models the early version with the L/43 gun, or did they have the L/48? I don't know why I thought the StuGs were Fs. How late did this German stuff stay in service? Until the communist takeover or only to the end of the war?
Seth