Why the German Army couldn't overcome their bad logistics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- It's well known that they German Army had poor logistics in WW2. So could they have improved it? Doing so would have helped them on the Eastern Front. So should they have built more trains, trucks, roads, railroads? Should they have had an army of engineers? Well, the answer probably isn't what you're expecting. Today, we're going to talk about the "economic calculation problem" and why the German Army (or any current army) can't have efficient logistics.
Thank you to my Patreon, Diego Torres-Siclait, for today's question!
Want to ask a question? For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
🔔 Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video, and many of the icons, were created by Terri Young. Need graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
The specific bibliography for this video docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
For the second half of the video, I heavily based my script on the video "What If There Were No Prices?" by the channel Learn Liberty, because their video was great! Link: • What If There Were No ...
And my full list sources for the channel docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments • Hitler's Socialism | D...
BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD S1/E1 - The 6th Army Strikes! • BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD...
"What If There Were No Prices?" by Learn Liberty • What If There Were No ...
"Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt • Video
"Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell • Video
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
As someone pointed out, I put "Operation Barbarossa 1942"... yes, that's because Stalingrad is drilled into my brain at the moment! It was 1941
And at around 22:25 I accidentally put a "£" symbol rather than a "$" symbol. I noticed when doing the subtitles, but it was too late to sort it
ua-cam.com/video/zg3Gqqlb6rk/v-deo.html
TIK. If you ever get the chance can you please offer your opinion on this one simple question that never seems to get answered directly: How many Shermans per Tiger? Given table top terrain, good visibility, no other arms, fully fueled and equivalently trained crews.
Yes, I know this would NEVER happen. Yes, I’d call for an air strike 100% of the time too if given the opportunity.
And, yes, the Sherman was a war winning tank while the Tiger was not. But that doesn’t satisfy the basic question. Please help. Your approach of reading and weighing sources is the only method to come to some sort of reasonable conjecture I believe.
Fascism isn't noted for thinking things through.
It's more of an emotional response to myths, rumours and fake science.
Logistics problems are complex but can be solved they are not incalculable. The failure of axis supply networks in the East wasn't due to central planning or a command economy, it was simly due to lack of fuel, lack of roads, and the few roads being dirt tracks. A different rail guage didn't help. So... you get it partly right (lack of fuel) but mostly wrong (at least 22 minutes in). Weather and the absence of roads, and btw very few railroads which used a different guage of track than in the rest of Europe requiring trains to be switched at the border.
there's absolutely no way to use the price mechanism in literal combat.
"Let's talk about bloat in the German Army. And here's a picture of Goering."
Ouch, that hurt.
Big fat man controls the airplanes
Such a delusional and materially debauched man.
made my day!!
He did have a brain though.
Goering was the epitome of military inefficiency. In 1942, the Luftwaffe had some 200,000 "spare" men, supposedly for use for expansion. Those men could and should have been transferred to the Army, where they could have been used to rebuild and replenish the ground divisions depleted in the previous years fighting. Goering couldn't stand the idea of "his" Nazi indoctrinated troops being sent to the Army, so insisted instead that they be used to create some 20 "Luftwaffe Field Divisions". All these new divisions had to be given new equipment, weapons, etc, badly needed elsewhere, and there were few if any officers with ground combat experience to staff them. They turned out to be nearly worthless when exposed to combat. The only one to not be demolished in combat and disbanded by the end of the war was the one sent to occupation duty in Norway. Goering also eventually created some 10 or so "Parachute" Divisions; the later ones being untrained and Parachute in name only.
Goering wasn't the only one playing this game. Himmler spent the war constantly expanding his Waffen-SS. Both the Luftwaffe and the Waffen-SS often had their own separate factories and procurement systems to ensure new weapons were going to their units, while the regular Army divisions were constantly short.
For anyone interested in an alternate history of Goering, there is a book, "Luftwaffe Victorious" by Mike Spick. Goering is there in the beginning to get the Luftwaffe started, where his ego and drive were useful. He dies in the summer of 1940 in a bombing raid over England, when the plane he's riding in as a propaganda publicly stunt gets shot down and crashes. Subsequent commanders of the Luftwaffe correct Goering's early mistakes or blunders, pursue new and better planes and technology, and make it a much more efficient and useful force multiplier for the German war effort. Germany still loses the war, but extends it long enough that the first two atomic bombs end up being used on Germany, including one on Berlin.
The more I learn about German logistics during ww2, the more I am impressed how far they actually came with such a nightmare system.
The soviet defeats in Barbarossa and Typhoon were that catastrophic.
@@matthewbadley5063 5 million losses is nothing when you have 150 million people.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 It isn't possible to mobilize 100% of a population.
34~ million men and women served in the red army during the war. 15% of them were killed or captured in the first 3 months of fighting. That's a big damned blow.
@@matthewbadley5063 Leacing 29 million. I like those odds.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 the axis population and Soviet population were roughly equal especially in terms of fighting age capable. The Germans didn’t need to annihilate the entire soviet populace just get them to surrender.
"Battles are won by the quartermasters before the first shot is fired." - Erwin Rommel
Or as the USMC General said "amateurs talk about tactics, professionals study logistics"
Funny that this quote is attributed to rommel, since he spent so much time over-extending his supply lines in Africa.
@@Gepedrglass did he though?
@@Gepedrglass when the British bombed his fuel supplies and the ships transporting it to Africa his capacity to provide fuel for anything was compromised
Who was defeated twice.
This illustrates the saying "Amateurs study Tactics, professionals study Logistics"
I’ve never heard that, Best thing I’ve heard all month
@@patchescessna7348 General Forrest (US Civil war, Confederate) put it this way "Get there firstest, with the mostest."
@@77gravity Didn't the quote from OP come from Alexander the Great?
@@boogaloobomber9889 No idea. Let me know if you find out :)
Winners study both.
If Hitler just put Mussolini in charge of the trains, supplies might have arrived on time
Good one
you made my day 😂
I don't get it...
@@sharefactor it was a propaganda idea that trains in Italy didn't arrive in time, till Mussolini came to power
@dyl I see what you did there.
And just to point out, it was the German Logisticians who told everyone they would not support an invasion of Russia and it should not be tried..The army just ignored them
Technically they said they could go a few hundred kilometers into the Soviet Union, but no further, so the battle had to be won and the Soviet Union would have to collapse before this point, otherwise they'd be doomed. That's why the German generals planned to win in the first few weeks/months, but failed
@@TheImperatorKnight Did they ever had a contingency plan?
@@domagoj905 What could that possibly be? The Germans pretty much had everything figured out properly in terms of planning. They understood WWII could last a few months at most or they would lose. They understood the Soviet material advantage over Germany grew with every passing day so attack needed to happen as soon as possible. Their failure was in not understanding that they had already passed the point of no return in terms of a successful war against the USSR. Germans underestimated total Soviet strength by tremendous margin. War needed to happen in 1937 or 1938. By 1941, the math was simply impossible.
Ironically, General Paulus stated that Barbarossa would stall along the Dnepr for lack of supplies. The Germans were notorious for not caring about logistics, going back to Napoleonic days. Must be in the blood....
@@scottwillie6389 Their failure was having an operation depend upon hope and a prayer that the Soviets would collapse politically after the Germans reached the Dnepr. Very bad intel never saw the Soviet's huge armies behind the Dnepr.
A US Army officer did a study of German logistics post WW2. It reads like a horror story. After reading all I could think was how did the Germans manage to hold on as long as they did.
whats the work?
Slaves and pillage - read a few books maybe?
And they had to add the complexity of moving people around to the gas chambers made it a far bigger monstrosity.
Didn't a lot of countries just more or less give up during the blitzkrieg's? If you taking large swaths without having to fight for them or only having to engage in small skirmishes it can make up for a lot.
@@penskepc2374Yes, the fright was too big. If the benelux countries had put up any meaningful resistance, thing, may have played out like in WW1.
I'm a Quartermaster officer in the US Army and love your videos breaking down German logistics problems. It is enlightening and refreshing to read about something other than the snow causing problems.
Supplying War - Wallenstein to Patton is an absolutely amazing book, I'm happy to see it featured in this video.
Well I'm just a civilian who runs a cabinet shop, and while there are some shortages right now, we will muddle through and I just wanted to say- keep up the good work.
Watching the video made me appreciate my unit supply that much more. We may be missing things we need, but thank god our logistics aren’t as nightmarish as the OKW.
And don't forget. invading Russia in the winter is y they failed
@@midwestreview6382 They did not invade in winter they invaded in June which is the start of summer. They went in thinking it would be a quick war and that they would win the war before winter but that did not happen at all. Russia did not fall apart or surrender and Germany got stuck and had to keep fighting for years to come. The winter was only part of the problem but not all of it. Putin made the same mistake invading Ukraine and now the Russian army full of recruits with no winter gear is about to face a Russian winter on the field unprepared for a disaster.
@@midwestreview6382 they invaded Russia on the 22nd of June 1941. It obviously wasn't in the winter time. There problem was they did not conquer Russia before Winter came.
I am sure that the whole train stealing bit started with an officer somewhere telling a sergeant, "I don't care how you get the supplies, just do it!"
Well scrounging seemed to be endemic within the German Army even from WW1....Featured highly in the book All Quiet on the Western Front...
Sounds like the something the "Devil's Brigade" did.
That is what NCO's are for
@@jamesbeeching4341 That is something every army all over the world through out all ages has done. My platoon did it and we were "victims" of it when some Canadians "liberated" 5000 of our prima .50 caliber Multi Purpose ammo.
@@ichhabe330 Exactly right. One of the many subplots in Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is around an episode of that.
so all I have heard is the Wehrmacht should have shipped itself through amazon.
😄😄😄😄👍
Amazon would probably be cool with it.
😂😂😂😂😂
But then they run the risk that they are going to be just stolen off the porch.
@@przemekkozlowski7835 Then the army would be using glitter bombs to deter them.
To be fair, very few Amazon routes involve armed resistance.
Not to mention they still operate inefficiently, often sending out half, or quarter full delivery vans which is terrible for the environment. Plus they have become a monopoly choking out competition while providing low quality jobs. Most sane people can admit the benefits of capitalism but this guy is glorifying it for some reason..? I don't get it. The idea soldiers should pay for their own ammunition..? Yeah, and doctors should pay for peoples medicine out their pay check too..
Have you been to Chicago?
Detroit? Gary Indiana?
Alex, I'll take "LA cargo train theft" for $18M
Amazon is like the worst possible example. they under pay and overwork all their workers. and yet they still make most of their money by undercutting the competition
Hi Tik! I'm a senior math student at my university, and your description of this is absolutely perfect. A class of this kind of problem are "multistage serial programming problems", otherwise generally known as dynamic programming, and not the computer kind. To give you an idea of how insanely difficult these problems are to solve precisely, if you had 10 relationships between your resources, *only* 10, there are 2^10 = 1024 possible solutions, only ONE of which is optimal, and most of which are horrible! For systems like a war economy, it's just beyond the scope of computers, at all. Thats why "value" as an abstract is so useful, it becomes a more simple issue of minimizing cost
Tragically my projects aren't economic :'-)
@@hazelsparks4503 and yet this why a free market economy tends to be better at making war material and doing war. They have industry to handle all the demands and still have civilian goods being made while also being able to ship everything cheaper than a non free market based military
Germany had a war economy only from 1942
1943 onwards. Britain had one from 1939 onwards. Hitler was afraid of putting pressure on his civilians. It was also highly inefficient.
@@patrickporter1864 what was their earlier economy?!
@@patrickporter1864 TiK's point is that they had distorted pricing already baked into the economy
Really disturbing that I got an ad from a company called “Living spaces” on a video about the Nazi invasion of the USSR LOL
Dear God
I guess they want you to move in as well :D
My brother claims he once got a Hugo Boss advertisement while watching a video about German Uniforms haha
r/theyknew
LEBENSTRAUM
Oh god, TIK accidentally put 1942 for Operation Barbarossa. This entire video is now DEBONKED
Surprisingly, this isn't the first time I've done this. I think I did the same in the Order 227 video, and the reason why is because all I'm thinking of right now is STALINGRAD STALINGRAD STALINGRAD
Should have stuck to tanks, lol.....
@@TheImperatorKnight the history police will be cancelling you forthwith
We are all debonked on this sacred day.
@@micfail2 Sorry, the M-47 Dragon AT Missile didn't come into service until 1975.
I can imagine a german division stuck in Stalingrad and just about to get resupplied before their credit card gets denied.
To be fair they should use PayPal 😂
all wars = bankers wars
Another important element: Allied supplies were distributed to regional supply depots, then drawn down by local units. German supplies were shipped to specific units, allowing for massive problems in the ''fog of war'' as units moved around, for example....
Allies used push logistics.
Axis used pull logistics.
@@065Timthe funny thing is that it’s reversed now. The US uses pull. Russia(the global #1 threat) uses push. It the good thing about pull is that it removes middleman waste since you aren’t sending ammo to where it isn’t needed. Technology really shows
German infighting is small fry compared to their Japanese ally. Nothing beats the hilarious pettiness of the IJA vs IJN rivalry.
They sometimes even flat out lied about taking strategic points to fuck with each other.
you know inter service cooperation is terrible when the IJA built its own aircraft carriers and the IJN its own infantry divisions
@@robertbodell55 Owning aircraft carrier is normal, since when their army get bloated its going to happen like US army own F-15, and various transport ship. Also IJA aircraft carrier is more like LST than actual carrier. In modern time this equal to heli carrier.
Navy always want their own infantry. In most countries Marinier is part of Navy. Exept US since it got bloated as well and have their own aircraft, tanks, etc.
@BenjaminTheRogue I really really super wanna believe this, could you please provide sources so that I can die in peace
@@MelleLaCruze I'm confused, is this /s?
I'm amazed that they didn't bomb or shell each other.
The person making the question almost sounds like a time traveler gathering info to win the war for the germans hahaha
it's a pretty good (and fun) exercise, to put yourself in the skin of the losing side of a historical battle/campaign/war and try to figure out how you could have done better.
There is no such thing as time travel. It's a delusion.
@@joshdrexler8773 you don’t say?
@@kaustubhillindala2643 bro of course he is gonna say that because he is discouraging you from trying.
@@joshdrexler8773 that exactly what a time traveler would say. I see you, time traveler!
Holy shit, this video makes a lot of things make a lot more sense.
Capitalism is just meritocracy combined with smart debt and intellectual property rights. That smart debt btw is the idea that you can take out a loan and in the time it takes to pay back that loan receive a return on the investment OF the loan greater than the interest (so I take out a loan to buy a house, and I rent it out. Smart debt is when I make more money from the renters in the time I'm in debt than the interest on the loan. If that happens its a smart loan to take because you net benefit from going into debt.)
Of course a guy with a billion macro keys is interested in the logistic and efficiency of WW2.
Right? A clear and concise examination of the subject matter...so Very illuminating.
If you're stupid, perhaps
Hijacking trains to get supplies reminds me of some of the stories I heard from vets coming back from Iraq. My brother was in motorpool and it was pretty common to get parts and equipment under "special arrangements". Military logistics is extremely hard and even the wealthiest nation on Earth with the largest military can't get it right.
It's not because there is a lack of parts, it's because of you report a piece of equipment missing they try and make you pay for it, literally with money. And you already don't get paid shit so you just wait until another battalion does their layout and go and "acquire" what you need. The other reason is, is because Army mechanics and supply are notoriously lazy. Don't care if it offends it's true. I can't tell you how many times I heard the phrase from a mechanic "that's 10 level maintenance" meaning it's grunt work. From supply it was always "do you have the NSN?". "No I do not have the 20 digit number that is associated with this specific thing. Oh you don't have it either. Yeah I'll see if I can find the number since obviously you're terribly overworked." This why things never get ordered and replaced. With it being computerized you would think it would get easier but the military as far as I can tell has failed to modernize the most important aspect of war
" this was not good for the local population..."
You bet.
Great video TIK! As an Economics major in college and a former US Army Logistical Officer, I can attest to the fact that supplying the military correctly and in a timely manner is a never ending challenge while also extremely vital to mission success.
Just a question, what are your thoughts on the idea of substituting priorities instead of prices to solve supply and demand issues during military campaigns? I realize it's not a perfectly efficient solution, but perhaps a more realistic one? Let me know what you think and thanks for the awesome videos!
Isn't that what they Try Anyways,
Even Back then?
Which is Where Most of this Problem Also Comes from?
TIK argues you cannot rely on prioritization too, soldiers will simply lie about their requirements since they are not charges for it. (As was commın with every army in ww2)
I like the explanations of logistics in this video and I think it puts into perspective why the invasion of the USSR needed to be one decisively and quickly. Often we think the Germans only planned for a short campaign out of a heightened sense of arrogance and short-sightedness, but it seems there were very practical reasons why they could not hope for a long term campaign that ensures victory.
The were told this by their logisticians and what would happen but the politicians ignored them.
I know you posted this 3 years ago but still.
won*
That's a lot of Patreon supporters. This shows there is high TIK demand and not enough TIK supply.
This is actually true. By keeping the price low, I do allow more people to ask questions for Q&As (demand) but this is also why I'm a year behind with the questions because I can't keep up (supply). In theory, I should increase the price of the Q&A questions at least. And some patreons have commented saying they're astounded that I don't charge more, since other UA-camrs definitely charge more.
@@TheImperatorKnight Charge more!
@@TheImperatorKnight So you're saying the anarcho-capitalist historian is involved in _price manipulation???_ ;P
@@MrBigCookieCrumble the most ancap way would be to hold auctions for a question every week or so. It'd simulate the market.
@@TheImperatorKnight the power of Hayek compels you!
Perhaps the reason Army group B wasn't receiving enough replacements is because they were not getting enough supplies to support the extra replacements.
Yes, I think that is partly true
Nope it was mainly because the army group had been replenished end of winter / start of spring for blue case whereas the others army groups had not ... it was so their turn because they were exhausted in manpower after the terrible winter 41/42. Logical.
Is there a concentration effort problem in german command at the time? Yes of course. The army group south (A and B) is way too weak for its mission. But the remplacement system is perfectly logical here!
@@charlesmarchetti4225 Very good point actually. Even if group north and center and A were receiving more than they lost, it doesn't mean they were recieving more than they needed for the task they were asked to do.
@@etistone they were receiving more than they lost « on the period from july to november ». Not from the start of barbarossa. They were in fact very weakened and never found again their strenght of june 1941.
But again the german did not concentrate enough forces for army group A and B in 1942 thus making their 1942 strategic offensive not strong enough. They failed the war principle of force concentration.
@@charlesmarchetti4225 Yeah true.
And even in the hypothesis they recieved more than they lost since the begining of barbarossa, the lenght of the front, the brutallity of the fight may have required even more troops than that.
Maybe in the end they couldn't possibly succeed because their front was too large and threateaned in so many places already, they just could not reasonably concentrate more troops. And even if they did and took Stalingrad, they would still have lost the war most likely.
My father was in the U.S. 103rd Inf. Division and they entered Europe in the Fall of 1944 via Southern France. He told me that from what he saw the German Army had no trucks at all and only had horse carts for their movement of supplies. As for captured German POW's he reported that he would see them being marched "by the thousands" to designated POW's camps.
My uncle was a tank driver in a Sherman and from North Africa to Germany he told of many instances of Germany just not having the resources for a war of attrition Vs. the Allies.
He told of Luftwaffa airfields full on new planes, with no pilots or fuel to fly them. Infantry divisions that relied on horses, and field artillary that were using horse drawn cassions like the US army did in WWI.
Germany was in no position to win a modern war after Sept. 1 1939. Not enough resources, men, fuel, food or equipment.
The food industry is incredibly wasteful, price alone isn't a perfect metric to end inefficiencies.
There are only 3 conditions you could have, shortages, waste, or perfection. Since perfection doesn’t exist I’d rather have waste.
@@hectornonayurbusiness2631 Some waste is allright, but purposefully destroying your production in order to raise the prices while people are starving I don't find acceptable.
@@bugfighter5949 Now think again about what you said.
@@bugfighter5949
Government intervention in action.
@@bugfighter5949 Through Gov Intervention aka Subsidies it´s cheaper to grow Tomatoes in Holland, ship them to Africa and sell them with Profit.
Judging by the cover art the first mistake was putting the rail under the track ties instead of on top.
I hadn't noticed that! I'll let Terri know she's fired 😂
@@TheImperatorKnight Don’t worry. Train nerds like me got you covered.
More beatings for the staff
They should thank their lucky stars that they cancelled Operation Sea Lion and so didn't have contend with British speed bumps
This is a very underrated comment 😂
Not speed bumps, potholes are roads are atrocious 😂
Are we just going to ignore the fact that the Germans would have to get supplies across water if they landed?
I don't know, the traffic circles might have caused issues as well.
@@d39street66 Step 1: reject humanity, retvrn to sheep
Step 2: live off the english meadows
Step 3: win (profit)
In a day and age when very few historians (and even more so-called historians) just bloviate facts with no footnotes...its very very refreshing to see history lessons citing sources...numerous ones. Thanks TIK
The Germans would have had many more trains if they hadn’t been fixated on murdering their supposed enemy’s.
The German death camp operations seemed to have plenty of logistical support. Sadly.
LMAO. Mass murder was NOT on the agenda. Trying to survive psychopaths hellbent on destroying them once and for all became an issue. They did not want to take over the world. The Communists and Masons running the Allied powers wanted total world supremacy. And they got it thanks to ignorance people like you
@@LukeLovesRose Why don't don't you crawl back into right wing fascist hole you came from .
@@LukeLovesRose mass murder wasn't on the agenda?? Try looking into the purpose of the Wannsee conference at the beginning in 1942. Solving the Jewish problem. What do you think the purpose of the einsatz groups were?
@@danielrupe8052 Why don't you watch Europa: The Last Battle and learn the truth about WW2
Lol. I just imagine a platoon leader begging for for reinforcements and ammunition, when the company CO goes "sorry, the neighboring company had a boy with a rich dad, we have to fight with sticks."
Would the "boy with a rich dad" even be there, though? The reason to be part of TIK's hypothetical private army would be to get paid, and if the boy with the rich dad is expending more (of his Dad's) money on ammunition than he is getting paid, being part of the army would be a pure loss for him, so he would quit, and thereby not buy up all the ammunition.
No, the real reason why TIK's economic policies are not used in war is that war is an inherently economically wasteful activity, so any profit-seeking organization would avoid participating in them in the first place.
Lol I love the way people view economics! You guys make me laugh 😂
@@db7213 Exactly. War destroys, it does not produce. It is far better to trade, than to conquer. Trade is voluntary, and respectful of human life, while war is compulsory, and destructive of human life.
It is why we villainize the aggressor, because they choose to start the conflict, which requires either submission or war from the defenders.
@@TheImperatorKnight I know right? Your basic economics videos was hilarious.
@Torven The Grey Glad you found it entertaining! 😂
several german soldiers, interviewed independently, captured at normandy, reportedly said when asked what they thought when they seen the allies landing, "where are there horses"?
They could not understand why there were no horses being landed at normandy. can not recall where I heard that.
There is also another case where a German solder was certain they lost when they looted a dead American GI and found on his person "luxuries" (chocolate, cake, and sweets) and also they found fresh food sent from their parents meaning that America had the economic and production capabilities to supply all of its troops with things that in Germany only the elites could have and that they could ship it across an entire ocean while the good still remains fresh.
@@a-drewg1716 ive heard another where german officers or soilders i csnt remember, knew the war was a lost cause when they seen american tanks idiling for no reason. They couldnt imaging burning such a resources like that
There are a series of German diaries which were written during the war on UA-cam. At least one of the German diaries does record their astonishment at the number of trucks and Jeeps, and a complete lack of draft horses.
I heard from a German pow in Ww2 that while in America he was fed steak! He said he cried and thought how could the Americans do such a thing and fight a war too? They knew they were beat.....
23:10 Soldiers “willing to spend their hard earned cash for ammunition”?! What? No soldier pays for his own ammunition
No, but if lost a bit of kit you'd be expected to pay for it..... This might explain why captains go down with their ships......
@@tompiper9276 uhm, no. If you lose something your superior might get pissed but you don’t pay for it. It’s in the army’s best interest that you’re equipped for your task and not to make you less combat ready. Of course if you keep losing something then you might not get it replaced or get disciplinary measures but you’re not gonna pay for it in money.
Captains go down with their ship because it’s their responsibility and they devote their life to the vessel, that is also rarely ever the case as it’s just an honour thing and not a requirement.
@@sangay9361 Ummm... Yes, though I have a suspicion we might have had different experiences on this one. Obviously I wasn't serious about going down with the ship, inferring that otherwise they'd have to pay for it.
@@sangay9361 in some scenarios (such as in barracks), soldiers are expected to pay for kit they lose (unlikely in a combat scenario). This is to prevent sale of issued kit and equipment, and to a lesser extent, reduce carelessness
Yeah, and doctors should pay for their patients medicine out of their paycheck..?? I think the guy who made this video was smoking something when he wrote the second half of the video.
Someone has read and enjoyed basic economics :)
I'd hate to be a soldier in your army. "I'm out of ammo, and payday is next Thursday!"
Well, you shouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck. You need to ration your resources, be efficient with what you have, and save up for future consumption. You can also take on debt, but I wouldn't recommend that.
If someone tell you, ammo is for free, will not magically give you ammo. Knowledge you can't buy more ammo until next Thursday probably let you better planing, and maybe save some ammo :P.
@@TheImperatorKnight what if a sudden attack (impossible to predict) forces to spend all your ammo in the first week of pay check? :) rationing is not a viable option, sometimes
Amazing. When I was in training to be sent to Vietnam (Seabees), trainees were given 80 rounds of blank ammo a day for our trips into the field (three to five days). I made sure to complete all my "tasks" using no more than 60 rounds a day. On the last day, I had blank ammo to spare, to help ensure that our team would never run out of "ammo" and be captured. That was my "emergency reserve," and others were captured, but not us! Worked well in Vietnam, too!
What kind of Army wouldn't pay for their own soldiers ammo??
And yet no military in WW2 used price system to operate it's logistics and pretty much all had at least to some degree a planned economy and price control - even those that otherwise had a free market economy in piece time.
Is it because they were dumb? Or is it because... oh, right, because military operations don't generate direct income and are centrally planned by a single organisation that does not operate in a competitive market and is not a subject to supply and demand? So putting prices on them would have to be arbitrary and thus would in itself constitute a distortion of the price system?
TIKs take here is so terrible that it could only be something inspired by ideologically motivated thinking.
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. Same goes for his Hotels vs NHS comparison. If there is not enough demand in an area to make hotels profitable then the corporation would just not build one. If there is not enough enough demand in an area to make an hospital...then we expect the welfare state to still build one because "not a lot of demand" regarding health still means that there is demand. Can you imagine the state saying
"oh there is not a lot of demand in your region for heart surgeons so the few of you who need it will either die or somehow move hundreds of km to be treated if you have a heart attack".
Having desire for profit (essential for market pricing) as the core mechanism for things such as health or military matters is absurd. Moreover how to do you measure the efficiency of those divisions that ask for supply? Kill ratios? Looting? km of land conquered? Size of opponents?
I'm not communist (i'm center right) by any means but TIK is really being dogmatic about this. He is basically 100% convinced by classical economists like ricardo or adam smith. And most of his viewers who admire TIK for his insight on history (which is indeed impressive) blindly follow him when he takes a militant manichaean stand on economics.
Still love the show to be honest. Best WWII channel on youtube. By f****** far.
@@nicolasnguy5848
He's influenced by the Mises Institute, Adam Smith did believe in the free market, but not to the ridiculous extent that TIK does.
@@nicolasnguy5848 If there was not enough demand to build a hospital in an area, wouldn't that signal to the inhabitants to move to an area with a hospital? Or it could lower housing demand which would lower prices, which might lead to more people moving to that area, which would then increase demand for a hospital.
The problem is that we expect the government to provide, which it does in a limited and inefficient manner, by taking from the populace. It would be more efficient to have volunteer organizations coordinating charity from those who wish help those in need, or for those in need to find some way to contribute in order to be able to afford healthcare.
The social paradigm is a paradox, and will lead to WW3 when Asia and Africa decide they want social programs too. We are already destroying the planet, and people want it all and don't want to have to work for it. Fortunately, I have faith in space exploration to mitigate some of these issues, but the unrestrained spending with no regards to sustainability will always put this press on human development.
It would interesting to compare the Nazi logistic issue with the soviet one. Both were managed under the same constraints : controlled prices and heavy bureaucracy. So why and how the Soviets did it ? If the real reason of the logistic problem was distorted prices, how did they managed to supply their army ? Probably we'll need to go back to some old notions of ressources and production optimization and, what about planning ? The theory of distorted prices as being the main culprit of logistics failure is a bit weak to me. But I'm not an economic expert .
I spent 15 years in the US Army as a Quartermaster. It is not difficult, or impossible as TIK says, to send up and compile logistics reports and send them up the chain of command. (Even without computers!) All you need are three key elements:
1. A simplified reporting/ordering process.
2. A competent staff to handle the reports and requests.
3. A unified Logistics Chain of Command that can identify need and ability.
The Germans had none of this. The German Army Quartermaster Command should have been fully in charge of ordering and moving supplies from from Factory A to Front-line B.
The problem with the German High Command is that it did not properly centralize it's Logistics. Too many different departments, i.e too many cooks went and spoiled the soup.
@Satryadhamma Putra Yes.
this video is a great breakdown of how many of the millions of variables there are in logistics its not just one thing its everything contributing to logistical failures
I was going to go camping last weekend, but due to the infinite number of variables and my inability to maximize the efficiency of packing my trailer, by putting a price value on all the things I could take with me, I decided to say home.
TIK's weekly videos makes every Monday bearable, change my mind.
Facts have been spitted
love your contents as well (especially line posts)
This is the most HOI4 TIK video ever.
*Sad Australian Tuesday morning noises*
I can only watch on Tuesdays so wrong proved
In the parallel world of military capitalism: "Wow, bad news from Stalingrad. I'd better open short position on 6'th Army stocks"
Haha yeah that would be funny. But seriously -
Stocks = publicly traded (socialism/corporatism - public ownership or control of the means of production)
Capitalism = private trade (private ownership or control of the means of production)
ua-cam.com/video/ksAqr4lLA_Y/v-deo.html
@@TheImperatorKnight But aren't stocks privately owned? I mean, if I own 50% of some factory, it's nothing like it is nationalized or something. I'l watch your video
@@TheImperatorKnight That's really whole new level, dude. Even for you. Now even stocks are socialism? 😂🤣
@@user-nq7xu6gz7n Yes, stocks are individually owned, but you're buying a SHARE in the company. SHARED ownership is PUBLIC ownership. The company itself isn't private, which is why we call them publicly traded companies. See my previous link.
@@trololobochum No, stocks aren't socialism. The companies in the stock market though are not individuals. Therefore they're not private. They're publicly owned. That's why the Socialists want corporations - they just call them Syndicates. Syndicates/Corporations are the same thing, just different names. See my previous link.
Working strictly from the basis of profit/loss is fine for the manufacture of widgets where it's possible to assign value to the all of the component parts. It gets a bit stickier when some of the component parts are beliefs and ideologies.
I appreciate any logistical and resources video shares you produce. Your approach is unique and accurate. Thank you so much for your mentoring. Have a great week, Casey
Even the US didn’t collect that scale of data. They didn’t act like Amazon but like Sears and Roebuck. Standardization and Cataloging
Exactly. There are many different measures of efficiency.
But TIK, Soviet economy wasn't a market one either. However, last time I checked, the were able to recover from their logistical collapse of autumn and winter of 1941
They were heavily supported by the West.
@@marrs1013 from 1944.
1. Their supply lines were much shorter
2. They didn't suffer a shortage of oil
@@Thematic2177 most of Soviet industry at the time was located at Urals and Central Asia. They also some oil shortages, especially in 1942.
ua-cam.com/video/BIeyq2mE9t8/v-deo.html
MHV talks a bit about this subject.
“Welcome to Ancapistan. Where every man can be a king”
Unironically, yes. Every man a king
I unironically want my McNukes.
@@adrianshephard378 I’m a Posadist. So do I
@@AnimarchyHistory I ain't talking no public owned nukes, I mean my very own private owned nukes guarded by my electrified gate, with my autoturrets, guarded by a minefield, guarded by cybernetic attack dogs, guarded by paramilitary tomboy commandos.
"Hanzs i ran out of bullets, do you have some spare cash"
"Sorry I don't have cash to spare"
"Fuck"
*they both die*
I think it was in a Robert Citino video talking about this he explained how the rubber shortage led to the truck shortage. This in turn led to the German army commandeering any truck they could find, including delivery trucks in the occupied territories, and at the beginning of Barbarossa, they had about 100 different truck models in use, leading to more problems with spare parts for incompatible vehicles driving over rough or non-existent roads. And of course, a lot of the army's own transport was horse-drawn carts, which needed food.
Germany before the war really wasn't a car owning or producing Nation despite boasting some very high profile luxury marques. It wasn't even close to being the largest industry in Europe, and they were all leagues behind the US. despite their adoration of Henry Ford and 'Fordismus', the German Auto industry was by and large a craft affair.
If army run the war for profit, it would have made the deal with the enemy on day 1 and surrendered.
World Peace, brought about by Capitalism. :D
@@shorewall Or the opposing enemy simply pays someone like Milo Minderbinder from Catch-22 to bomb and disable their own airbase and airman barracks ...
The point of war, at its most noble and least debased, is that it's a matter of national survival and geostrategy of which no price index can be reasoned in exchange.
Apparently there was a sign at our WW2 depots stating winning a war takes billions and losing a war all you’ve got….
@@adelahogarth2761 You got that right.
Despite the Wehrmacht's popular reputation for poor logistics, I still marvel at the swift withdrawal of Army Group A from the Caucasus. The great distances already covered and the hard fighting involved coupled with the knowledge that they were ever so close to their objectives (relatively speaking) must have made the retreat not just difficult but heartbreaking.
At this point I have no idea how the hell they even managed to battle with other nations. Like they should be by all accounts a failing army but by some miracle they were able to go on.
@@temkin9298 well the miracle of socialism is that it can spawn "endless" resources in the beginning, that's why it seems to work so well and therefore is is so appealing to the people.
For example, Portugal, we got out of a dictatorship in 1974, and the next 20 years we were showered with money from central banks everywhere, life was amazing, everyone was happy, everyone could buy land and build an house, every family bought 1 car for each adult member, highways were built everywhere, healthcare was free and great, luxurious pensions for everyone.
20 to 25 years later, the truth starts to set in, the debt has to be paid, the highly inneficient systems consumed everything and can't stand on their own. Basically we have been a fail state in the last 20 years. There's only one trajectory, downwards until the collapse, and steady we go down the drain.
@@thug588 german "blood" has got nothing to do with logistics.
@@thug588 oh in what way?
The little but nevertheless decisive river Don still empties into the world ocean of which the Sea of Asow is a part of. If this water would fill up the Caspian Sea, increase its level 28 meters, the center of all landmasses will migrate out of the Big Pyramide and travel north/northeast. The rest would be jewish privacy, or "something completeley different"
That was amazing. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you put into it.
Lizzie Collingham's "The Taste of War" does a good job explaining part of the logistical problems many nations suffered during WWII
Tik I really appreciate that you put subtitles on all of your videos, specially for deaf people, and that makes me wonder how long it takes you and if you have ever considered stop doing it
I script most of the videos, and UA-cam has an automated subtitles feature, which isn't 100% but gets it close enough, so it doesn't take too long to go through it and correct any mistakes. My main gripe is that UA-cam allowed other users to contribute to the subtitles, and people used to put in Chinese, German, Spanish and more subtitles. But UA-cam recently took that feature away :(
@@TheImperatorKnight Yeah, a few trolls ruined it for everyone, it was such a useful feature for channels like these.
@@TheImperatorKnight Thank you for taking the time to do it. I'm not completely deaf but have issues that make it difficult to make out words a lot of the time and have to rewind and rewatch sections often. Easier to read through the captions twice or 3 times instead of backing up the video a dozen times trying to make out what someone is saying.
@@Raskolnikov70 As a German I always enable subtitles to learn new words. In every TIK's video there are a couple of English words I never heard of before. Google translate stays always open when watching TIK's videos.
@@Edax_Royeaux UA-cam wouldn't ever exist without Capitalism
Dear TIK, I really enjoy your content - but stating that in wartime marked made (true) prices would help with logistics is a strong take. Like who doesn't remember Georgy Zhukov getting his hands on this crazy good deal on T34/s and got one free for every 10th he purcased. Or the great Red-Ball Express price gouging, where America lost the western front because fuel prices spiked to much.
I mean, it's an interesting thesis that war would be waged better if every army leader has to think like a 17th century Lord who has set up his own section for the King and now has also to suplly it by buying from traders in his area. But if you make such a statement and want to talk about it in earness it would be cool if you could already adress some of the possible counterarguments.
Like: what about price gauging? What stops the industry in your example from raising profit margins as the demand increases? Especially in case of war, when we are limited to the national industry which capacities are used to the outmost?
Why did even the British and Americans, which were pretty capitalistic, decide to switch to a war-industry mode with heavely governed industry and fixed prices?
Why were Soviet logistics so incredible good, managing to supplly large armies somewhere on the edge of nowhere with everything they needed if it was available? (at least after Fall 1942)
And how do you explain the whole gold exchange business in Nazi Germany, where industrial leaders let themselfes be paied in gold for their services, which they moved into Switzerland and Sweden as things went south? Wasn't that a kind of price they let themselfes pay in Gold instead of a Gold tied currency?
I like your work, but I think you leaned a bit far out of your window here.
(Also, in Germany, when our national health service was completly state owned we always had a good surplus of every services needed, with an extra reserve for a possible pandemic. Then, after we started to privatized some of the hospitals, they closed all this down, sold up the reserve and still somehow managed to increase their costs. And in the town I lived in there once was a boom so every major chain decided to build hotels there and when they were finished they were all heavely underbooked. And although they still only make high losses (before the pandemic even) they were kept open because the chains want to keep their face present. I wouldn't call that the best possible use of resources.)
Nice response. I think the issue with Germany in WW2 is that they acted too much like a feudal system, and did not have a properly centralized and controlled manufacturing and supply system. The US and USSR both had these, which is why they could out-produce their opponent and keep their forces, on average, better supplied than their German counterparts.
@@nicholasconder4703 Yeah, also, for propaganda purposes they tried to keep food and consumer products as available as if there was no war at all. At least till '42. While every other country somehow created a ration based distribution system and was open to their puplic that the war would mean cuts to the private people, Germany hasitated from doing so for a long time, fearing backlash from the populous. BTW, Germany kept producing civilian cars for private customers in large numbers for longer then the US, even though the US only joined the war in late 41.
But one should always remember that the Germans who profited from this system, who shaped and controled it, were mainly the old and big Capitalistic businesses owners. Those who already had been hot shots under the kaiser and now couldn't compete in a free market, therefore abolishing the market while still keeping capital as the currency of power.
I hope TIK will try to answer these questions.
Leo Schorberschofskie. Exactly - you raise a bunch of good points.
No one uses ACTUAL prices in an actual market, but SHADOW (ie theoretical) prices in an imaginary (ie mathematically constructed) market. It's just a way of setting up the linear programming problem, and used for all sorts of resource allocation problems - especially for public infrastructure investments.
It is interesting, in contrast, how efficient the final solution was, largely thanks to an IBM subsidiary supplying punch card technology so they could track individuals and keep the trains running as efficiently as possible. Having recently watched your video on the horrors of the German supply problem at home, it is no surprise they failed when they tried to project this system across the vast distances of the Russian steppes. It also made me laugh when you suggested the idea of mass surveys to try and understand the situation in Russia when there was already a paper shortage in Germany. Thanks for this and related videos. While Ive always been interested in the military conflicts of WW2 I have seen and read very little of what was going on behind the scenes.
Great video TIK! The Austrian school of military economics; an interesting concept. So often we find that the source of Axis problems and mad behaviour was bad economics.
TIK, if you want to run army like a business, how exactly will it turn out profit? Would it be paid by a square mile, by 100 soldiers killed or by selling loot?
Just like any business that turns a profit, you have to provide a good or service that people actually want, and not be inefficient with resources.
@@TheImperatorKnight This sounds like great premise for dystopian fiction (like cyberpunk)
How do mercenaries work?
@@TheImperatorKnight It depends TIK. If your costumer needs the product as fast as possible and is willing to pay more for a less "efficient" delivery, then what is wrong with that? That is how free market works!
"all military logistics currently operate without prices."
Negative on that.
The QM corps knows the price of every, hammer, hangar, pen, pillow, tank, truck, boat, backpack, bullet, and bean, and everything in between, even if the average soldier doesn't know. Woe betide the young grunt that misplaces or wantonly breaks it.
Each unit gets an annual budget with a "use it or lose it" mandate.
I wonder how that came about...
i started out looking at the lost logistics & resources left after the afghanistan withdrawal of Humvees, trucks, aircrafts, body armor & uniforms, boots, bullets and guns dropped on the ground being intact except damgaing/removing parts on the airport, some the rest of the bases abandoned....
second.. i even hear some jokes/banter on active/former military forums (US NAvy on Reddit, im just some civilian observer) on the "chief who chews out the grunt who loses the wrench" or the funny story on quora of the guys who lost one helicopter rotor blade dropped on the ocean and the $100,000 something cost of it blew the guys minds and prayed as they got heavily scolded by the top but find the alternative to remelt the gym dumbbells steel to make/replace that blade... i guess every item & product has a price
However, the price of a one off item in say B&Q may differ from the calculated price that fulfills a high specification military item?
As for how Amazon does it? My sister is directly involved in that. They track every item, and keep inventory in every warehouse and every truck. They definitely don't rely on an internal market or price mechanism for this stuff. The only price mechanism they ever touch is the external one.
Amazon has profits and losses. Whether they are efficient or not will show up on their quarterly report.
Once in Cadet School, an officer was telling me and other former cadets about his time in the academy and that he was once in a field exercise and his instructor asked him what he would need to accomplish his assigned mission, my instructor, who was the assigned platoon leader in that exercise, thought to himself that it would be amazing to have a helicopter, but that it certainly was a wet dream and that the academy wouldn't have transport helicopters to an average cadet field exercise, so he just asked his instructor for what he thought was available like more food rations, water, tools for that mission and so on, so they crossed the instruction field on foot walking many miles, climbing and going down hills, crossing small rivers and the like, and when they got to the end, they found out that helicopters were actually available and that he very much was allowed helicopter transport, it was up to his creativity to ask his instructor.
He used this example to teach us that, as future officers, we should always ask for everything we would think about. The higher echelons would provide us with what was available, what they could provide, and deny what wasn't, so we would always have the best equipment available for our men.
I just thought it was an interesting experience that had a lot to do with the economic calculation problem and how public institutions are essentially trained to disregard scarcity
12 minutes of interesting information and 20 minutes of "stick to tanks"
But the ancap agenda aside there is some truth in it. And if it was only possible to decentralize financial power it could work. But for that you need a state....
@@echochamber4095 TIKs basic market theories do not necessarily work in real life markets nor do they work on topics with entirely different frameworks. In regard to military logistics he reaches the correct conclusions ...then dismisses them. The topic is worth discussing. But not in his style of "discussion management". ;-)
@@Edax_Royeaux well in the usa where megacorps fund politicians openly its almost direct ;)
The Germans could have solved most of their logistics problems by restricting the length of the front and not going too deep into the vast Russian interior. Then, of course, they wouldn't have achieved any of their strategic objectives, so they shouldn't have started the war in the first place.
The Germans would have solved their logistical problems by defeating the Red Army in the border areas, as expected.
@@agentorange6085 They did that. It didn't work.
@@bozo5632 well they could have kept at it? bleed the red army in the border regions over and over again. attack -> destroy-> delay -> fighting withdrawal ->attack ->destroy -> etc, as long as the red army is bleeding men and equipment loses similar to the initial barbarossa you should succeed. each time you can also creep closer as you build a stronger supply line.
now the enemy might wissen up to you but they can only do so mutch to try and counter you, especially with each loss removeing experiance inadition to other resources. it would certainly be better than letting men go beyond your ability to supply them and haveing them be made into causalties for less enemy effort.
not saying this would 100% work, but in theory it would work better than what they actually tried to do...
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Because the Soviets would have benefitted more from such a delay. They also were building up their logistics and industry at a massive rate, any delay makes them stronger. You say they would "run out of resources" but they wouldn't. Their man power potential was on a scale the Germans couldn't hope to match, as were there resources. The Allies were also providing the soviets with resources. On top of this, "building the German supply line" is not going to help. They lacked the oil to do anything more. This is what happens when a country throws a tantrum without caring about the long term. It looks impressive in the beginning because they mindlessly punch into territory they have no hope to hold in a way no other great power would be stupid enough to do. But soon enough reality comes crashing down.
@@bozo5632 No, the German plan was to completely eliminate the Red Army as an effective force. That did not happen. Their expectation was that they would be advancing into the Soviet interior against sporadic resistance, which would not have required expansive logistical support. I'm not suggesting this was a realistic possibility, simply noting that it was the assumption under which the Germans were operating when they embarked on the operation.
Fascinating video. Never thought of applying cost accounting to logistic issues. Thank you for the up load.
In the end they would come to the conclusion: "This war is not worth it"
In the book Speer wrote while in Spandau, he pointed out that Hitler refused to switch to a war time economy, thus a lot of repair parts were intentionally sabotaged by Hitler refusing to let German women into the work place, and that Speer had to fight industry's like they that made silver picture frames for strategic supplies. He also pointed out that even panzer units were supported throughout the war at rates of 3 to 5% by horse drawn cart. He also noted that the German General staff's were complaining about the insufficient numbers of trucks even before Poland.
Tooze refuted many of Speer's claims to this effect.
TIK, another AWESOME video. Thanks. As a retired US Army Engineer officer with logistics experience, you are spot on imo. Military logistics is one of the MOST difficult aspects of military planning and operations. Good logisticians are rare in my experience. It requires an above average understanding of economics and superior math skills. Sadly here in the US, economics education is all but ignored (I know because I am currently an adjunct professor of econ) and math education is woefully inadequate. As a result, this has a direct impact upon the logistics community. Computers have helped to a degree but that is yet another skill set that is also lacking. Keep up the great work and look forward to even more.
Wow thank you for your comment! It's not just in the USA, but economics education (actual economics, not Keynesian or Marxist) is rare throughout the world. People want "free stuff" and don't want to hear about anything else. But obviously this is bad because a lot people and institutions in the real world are having to make do with people who do not understand economics, and it's killing progress and creating big problems
@@TheImperatorKnight One of my first statements in my first lecture in Microeconomics is that: "There is NO such thing as "free;" everything has a cost, but good deals are possible."
@@TheImperatorKnight You are most welcome sir. I am very happy to be one of your loyal patreon supporters. Speaking of which, if possible, I sent you a message recently re. the use of captured equipment by the Germans. I hope the subject may be of interest to you. I ALWAYS greatly enjoy your insights and analysis.
So let me get this straight. Millions of Soviets starved to death before, during and after WW2 was due to brilliant libertarian logistics?
i know your holy answer to any problem is privatization, but there are pretty good reasons why no modern army (as far as I am aware) has privatized it's supply. foremost of these reasons is the question: ¨what if the enemy pays me 16euros instead of my normal 15euros in the middle of an important offensive just for NOT delivering anything¨?
Today the US military cannot go to war without contractors and even a lot of its logistical system is private companies.
Good point !
21:30
Assuming the price is already known misses out several critical steps though.
It assumes competitive forces. So that engineer that you want producing bridges may find that the pay is better building houses for rich SS officers, or maybe travel abroad or doing anything unuseful to the war effort.
I suppose you could assign generals tokens and let them assign resources how they want but what happens if everyone needs tyres and theres simply not the raw materials. Tyres get bid up and bid up to stupid levels so you're still possibly back to the perverse situation of armies buying new trucks just for the tyres. Plus ultimately the armies will have to do exactly the same work just at a slightly smaller scale. And you just introduce new complexities. Are the generals buying delivered tanks or from the factory gate? How is the railway run? Does each general run their own railways? Just their own trains on shared tracks, in your example what if there's 1 railway for 2 armies? Do they get one each and end up having to spend all the resources anyway?
The NHS attempts to do this very thing. Hospitals get paid a certain amount for operations, but that isn't perfect. You get hospitals merging to achieve economies of scale, and people facing an hour + drive to the hospital when they have a heart attack.
Britain didn't really do rationing in WW1, but it did do in WW2. I've never come across any claims that the situation of WW1 where the rich could pretty much get what they wanted, whilst the poor struggled to afford the basics was superior to WW2 rationing.
Stalin, of all people introduced competition into his army. When taking Berlin, he had the line separating Koniev's army from Zhukov's army stop short of Berlin. The two competed in an attempt to be first into the city. Koniev won. Soviet Army also paid fighting units a bounty for destruction of each enemy tank, each enemy aircraft, and a variety other measures.
If there are not the raw materials for a thing, Doing any type of logistical would not work? What's the point of that. If you don't have enough raw materials to make a thing, you're always going to have a shortage of it, whether you use a price economy or anything else.
@@bhaskarsingh1564 well everything's finite. There are certain things you can treat as infinite, but then humans have a knack for expanding demand and still manage to overwhelm it.
Logistics is about getting things to where they're most needed. Tik has correctly identified that that's hard. He's also identified that capitalism has one potential solution for part of the problem, is identifying need. Unfortunately capitalisms solution is to equate 'most need' with 'most money'. It also assumes there's space and time for supply and demand to reach equilibrium. Neither of these things hold particularly true in the context of war.
It doesn't even save the original work of accounting for every single bullet. You still need to do that work. Just like your supermarket needs to keep track of its stocks of tinned beans.
So yes logistics is always needed. Even if you only have one tank, it still needs transporting somewhere. It still needs fuel and ammo, unless you're going to give up and leave these things at home.
Soldiers having to pay for extra ammo sounds silly or tragic.
And if applied would probably be misused.
I am sure there were many soldiers in history who would have payed greatly for ammo if it were available, but it wasn't, because of logistics issues.
It would not probably be misused. It would get misused. Period.
This sounds a lot like tokenomics. Look into the various crypto currency projects. Computers using tokens to pay each other and make decisions.
@@francescomiele6601 Yeah, I'm sure those soldiers who didn't have ammo would have preferred to have any ammo, by any means necessary. The point isn't that soldiers should have to pay for their ammo, but that paying for ammo sets prices, which in turn shows supply and demand, and where bottlenecks and shortages could appear. It is a way to make sure that material and supplies is getting where it needs to go more efficiently. The only way to test it is to test it, which isn't likely to happen in a national military, but might happen somewhere.
@@francescomiele6601 That is a good point. :) Probably best just to overproduce everything, and/or not go to war.
Some thoughts on your video. I'm concerned with omissions of information that is fairly common knowledge even for casual historians, and it seems at first glance to be an intentional effort to disingenuously strengthen your primary argument:
1. There was no mention of horses which comprised the overwhelming majority of division logistical capacity (supply lines from Berlin were by train, but trucks didn't really play a role in getting supplies to divisions from railways given the condition of roads in Russia), nor was there any mention of the effects of winter on this mode of transportation considering it was precisely because of Germany's lack of a reliable source of oil: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II#Logistics
2. The effects of winter on equipment in the eastern front due to malfunctioning service rifles, machine guns, planes, and artillery pieces, nor was there any mention of the lack of proper winter clothing for soldiers: militera.lib.ru/h/stolfi/11.html
3. There was no mention of Soviet scorched earth policies specifically designed to deny resources that the Wehrmacht expected to depend on during the campaign, something I learned in year 8 as an American in a British school: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth#World_War_II
4. There was no mention of the turning point of the campaign, which was Stalingrad: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_points_during_World_War_II#Battle_of_Stalingrad_(1942%E2%80%931943). German defeat was more strategic than it was a logistic one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#Weakness_on_the_German_flanks
In addition, I'm incredulous at the comparisons you made in what can only be described as blind animus toward government services. Your references to the Australian post and the NHS are baffling and incoherent. A cursory look at the bed situation with the NHS shows that reductions of beds were to meet demand: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1471911/ and even though I researched it your claims about the quality of the Australian post aren't quantifiable simply because the claims are too vague. I recommend against these kinds of arguments because they detract from your main point because it's got nothing to do with military logistics, and honestly you're bloviating.
The assumptions in your previous arguments are unpacked and made bare when you attempt to apply a lazy what-if analysis of fuzzy supply-demand logic to military logistics, and then to my disbelief, you attempted to call Nazi economic theory 'socialist'. I really couldn't believe how you presented your ideas from a position of authority as if you were qualified to speak to your claims, because it's clear that you're not. Anyway here are my concerns:
1. Germany had a form of crony capitalism that created incentives for industrialists to align with Nazi interests, thus distorting demand toward things that Hitler and his staff wanted German industry to produce. Starting with MEFO bills:
cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1188&context=ghj, which were promissory notes provided by a shell company that was effectively a front for the Nazi party, it provided a way to give non-existent money to companies that would aid in the manufacture of German rearmament. Effectively a ponzi scheme, the system allowed rearmament to remain off the books and hidden from Allied Versailles compliance audits.
2. Germany underwent a privatization effort in order to build relationships with German capital: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties. There was no central planning involved at all. There was no manipulation of profit and loss, and furthermore there was no nationalization of corporations. Germany also eliminated trade unions when they started and sent strikers and union heads to concentration camps
3. Germany had a system of Autarky (economic independence and utopian self-sufficiency) in name only. It still conducted international trade, and had a colonial type of trade vision for its southern neighbors, taking raw materials from them and selling manufactured goods to them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Foreign_trade_relations
4. Germany's policy of Lebensraum (settler colonialism): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum outlined a vision of conquered territories that would then be cleared through what amounts to genocide for settlement by greater germans. This is unlike any socialist policy that exists in any way, shape or form. In the US we have a term for political charlatans, RINOs or DINOs (Republican/Democrat in name only). My point is that Hitler's Nazi party was socialist in name only: www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
But by the end of your video, it becomes clear that everything I watched was a BAIT AND SWITCH. This had nothing to do with German Military logistics. It was a deceptive rant to bring moderate casual historians into your wretched political sphere. You're nothing more than a charlatan, a grifter, a liar, and a bullshitter.
Tik this is a bit of a stretch and makes you sound a bit carried away by your ideological views. Anyways, i still love you and wish we could discuss logistics from up close as this is my area of expertise.
Imagine being a machine gunner and having to buy your own ammo.
Make every shot count!
@@edwardfox9550 Heard from a german trench in '42:
stop running left and right I'm trying to make a profit of my buy.
Still not as bad as if you are a Schwerer Gustav gunner.
Then imagine covid ammo prices.
Imagine being Paul Tibbetts!!!!
There would be the fact that in the german mindset everyone was encouraged to go to the combat arms.The prestige associated with combat usually meant that the best and brightest were channeled towards it. No young officer would have bragged about being a logistics officer.
Actually in 1870-1918 the brightest and best were sent to the Prussian Railway Staff to work out railway time tables etc for mobilization and supply!
@@jamesbeeching4341 The nazis took the warrior ideal to an extreme.Basically a satire of prussian militarism played straight.
Compare that to the US where Engineering and Seabee units gained an elite reputation. Logistics win wars.
I'm a bit skeptical of whether a system where military units would compete for supplies etc. on a market would be better.
Markets are generally quite practical in "normal" peacetime conditions where we have to balance between satisfying various different subjective consumption preferences of many individuals. Running a military campaign with the objective of a victory is a very different endeavor. There's a reason why using markets (with varying levels of freedom and regulation) is common for the former but much less so for the latter.
It's like Apolo program. Objectives must be accomplished no matter the costs
Your analysis is bunk. Free markets are not 'common' they have barely existed in history. The state way, the violent way, has almost always and at all times been in effect in some way, and it is people accepting it as normal that are to blame.
I do not ask that you raise your hand against your tyrants, just that you withdraw from them your support, so that we may see them topple from their lofty pedestals all on their own.
@@UmaROMC Your comment doesn't seem to be at all related to what I said. For example, nowhere in my comment did I use the term "free market".
18:45 one huge point is that they didn't have trailers for their trucks which can double their capacity for only about 10% more fuel usage
One of the most important things I have learned from TIK is "how bad the German logistics were during WW2! And that Halder was responsible!
I think this quote fits rather well:
“The amateurs discuss tactics: the professionals discuss logistics.” - Napoleon Bonaparte
That is quote from Gen. Robert H. Barrow of the USMC and that's because the US military has serious concern with logistics because they are operating across large oceans.
That's exactly the quote Napoleon wasn't aware of.
Napoleon did not discussed, he commanded.
@@RJLbwb Yes. I've heard that quote before, and i don't think it was Napoleon.
Napolean did not do well with logistics, look at Moscow 1812 and before that his invasion of Egypt.
God damn it. Your channel is such a wonderful Rabbit Hole. One clicks on one link, listens to a video, then gets fed to new videos that answers the questions raised in the first video. I love it!
One consideration you didn't mention is which railway could be repaired the fastest (an important consideration in a war). Also the price signal can be distorted by speculation.
No, speculation is a part of the price system. It has functions like risk management, alignment of time preference, etc
If a speculator buys cheap and sells high that means he bought when the value was low, held on to the scarce resources regardless, and is giving them up to people that need it now that it is valuable. That's a market function
The Beginning of the video was alright, the other half was essentially the avocation for a mercenary army as I have seen it. I wonder what would Italy or (Place Central African State Here) would say about it.
Mercenary forces are being used more and more in our time. You have to have a very strong economy to absorb the waste of a military.
As seen by the USA, world's largest economy and strongest military, being the main force behind NATO, and most European countries forgoing much military spending in order to focus on social programs. It's definitely the more rational approach.
Apparently France is a company lol
Black Water CEO Erik Prince love this video
Neither US or The Empire used free prices during ww2. So this lesson in economics theory is.... interesting.
Yes, they also managed to successfully understand the complicated logistical problem of invading Europe in 1944, and plan, organize and execute creative solutions to the problem. It was obviously not "impossible", and did not require an impractical degree of data to achieve.
I just can't wait to learn about how the Soviet cannon fodder bid on weapons, ammo, food, etc.....
TIK should steer well clear of politics and economics.
@@agentorange6085 Allied logistics in 1944 are analogous to Roman Engineering: overdone.
When you have such an enormous amount of basically everything at your disposal, supply becomes much simpler.
Simpler, not simple. The allies, despite their production capabilities, had logistical problems too, especially after the liberation of France. One of the driving forces for Operation Market Garden was the need for the port of Antwerp in order to ease the logistical strain.
It was not logistics that TIK referred to as being impossible, but rather the calculations of logistical efficiency.
@@Edax_Royeaux actually they kind of do, they are called civilian contractors and they make up an increaseing number of positions within modern conflicts, the vast majority of logistics for example has been handled by such free market forces for years. and even in the national units amount of money was issued to units to spend in the free market to upgrade their equipment in the way that their individual situations need most. so actually modern armies are relying increasingly on the free market... and moveing away from centralisation in some aspects, like logistics.
(additionally in a free market army, those soldiers not engaged would be less likely to need new tanks and thus would be willing to pay less for the new tank, as they already have a perfectly good one. but even if they did buy the few newer tanks, if the engaged units are in such a bad state then the unengaged units would move in to support them because they don't like the idea of looseing which is why they are willing to spend that extra money to replace a perfectly functioning tank)
Something that I should have mentioned before - NO construction job or activity EVER counts every screw, nut, bolt, piece of plywood, etc., required to do a job. You always buy in units, in bulk. Supplies purchased for every piece of work done on my house has been done this way. It is the same with supplying front line units. Logistics staffs figure out the daily consumption rates and then order units of supply accordingly (5,000 boxes of bullets containing x number of rounds each, 5,000 gallons of fuel, 15,000 rations, etc.). This is why you often see tonnage required per division as an indicator of logistics, and why supplies are usually listed as units, not physical numbers. However, no matter how you slice it, the German Armies were constantly running out of fuel, running low on ammo, lacking spare parts to fix equipment. This shows conclusively that their logistics, and the planning to continuously supply their offensives, quite frankly sucked!
Def. one of my favourite channels on UA-cam. Keep up the good work TIK! :)
I have neither economical, nor military background, but something feels wrong in this video. Indeed, logistics self-optimizes itself in market conditions. But it doesn't feel like combining active war phase with a free market would work. Since the war is purely state dictated external affair, the only profit source for other "market" components (factory owners, engineers, contractors) would be a state-subsidized army. There will be no other stimulus in war-supplying actives, other than getting payment from this only client. Now, if some army section/division/part, call it w/e you want, runs out of its "fair share" budget, the state will have no choice but to throw another heap of cash at them. Not only we have a weird case of a client who never runs out of money, it would be the only client existing.
I can't imagine contractor saying "Meh, Army Group North can gimme twice as much $ for this bridge, so go uck yourself, Group Center, I'm going up the map."
Yup this is what I don’t get either. All the money for the army groups would be coming from the state. It’s not like they’re economic independent economic producers.
It's not quite as crazy as it sounds though. Post-Roman but pre-modern war in Europe largely worked this way. Look at medieval and Renaissance warfare where knights literally had to pay for their own arms and armor. Their labor as warriors was owed to their lord as sort of primitive contract that paid for their right to collect dues on their manor lands.
Later in the Middle Ages, starting in Italy, armies became largely private and professional. Condottiero would be contracted by local city states to wage war on their behalf and would hire their own soldiers who very often had to pay for their own arms and especially moving into the 15th Century were compensated on the basis of written contracts. Individual soldiers would frequently move to and from different mercenary companies based on their wage rates and were compensated based on their equipment and experience. There's a good video on Landsknechts by SandRhoman that goes into this a bit. It's pretty fascinating honestly.
It's admittedly very hard to imagine how these sorts of systems would work in modern wars, but to a large extent that's probably because modern wars are far less profitable for the people who are paying for them. And if I had to guess that's probably because the people who decide when and where to go to war nowadays are the not the people paying for them. Medieval and Renaissance lords paid for their wars with rents and dues that were viewed as their private property. If the war got too expensive for their liking, they'd break it off and negotiate terms.
In modern times the resources belong to taxpayers, but are managed "on their behalf" by elected or unelected officials who either way supposedly "represent" the people. Both Hitler and Stalin were dictators, but Nazi Germany and the USSR were not viewed as their demense from which they could personally derive revenue and pass down to their heirs, but rather the property of the German People or the Worker of the Soviet Union on who's behalf they, the great and wise leaders, would make decisions. Like my dad always said, it's way easier to spend someone else's money.
Marginal rate of technical substitution between labor and capital. The error in the logic is in the cost-benefit analysis. If the invasion will result in capturing oil resources that will turn the tide of war and assure victory, the operating principle is "spare no expense."
Yeah, so then the army invests its money into the potential profit of the oil fields.
I think you also missed the point on when you were doing the costing of the railways, is which line could deliver the good faster more efficient and cost effective way as less fuel and manpower to operate. Thus sometimes making the line that cost more to make at the start cheaper in the long run or short run depending on the profit to be made. This is why as you put it its hard to gauge what the real cost of labor and goods are in a closed and controlled economy.
Hi TIK, excellent video as always, I’m a huge fan of your work. This is my second time watching this video and I had a couple questions:
1. Given the gross inefficiencies in military logistics due to lack of a pricing system, surely modern militaries might have experimented in implementing one, at least small scale. Do you know of any pricing experiments the modern military has tried?
2. It occurred to me as I was watching this that private militaries/mercenaries, such as Blackwater, might have more efficient logistics because they are a for-profit war waging company. In some ways, mercenary organizations would solve many of the problems you’ve outlined in this video because they have an incentive to wage war as cheaply as possible. Do you have any thoughts on this? Would be great to get your perspective on it.
Thanks for the great content, cheers.
How can you get an undistorted price system in an army at war? Or was half of the show just ideology again.
What do you mean? To get an undistorted price system, you have the soldiers and generals pay for what they need, and have the State pay for what it needs too without, of course, manipulating prices. It's as simple as that.
So scarce resources that have alternative uses would all had to be privately owned in order to determine their accurate price which in itself creates a lot of problems. The market for example can manipulate the state by setting the prices too high because they know that the demand is very urgent.
@@vii7031 not necessary for it all to be privately owned to have an honest price system
@@TheImperatorKnight Maybe I don't understand the rules of the game. What are the motivations of these soldier entrepreneurs? How much would be a ticket home? Can a soldier refuse to attack if he can't afford it. Can he make the decision without a general interfering? Is it allowed to make a profit and save money for a later investment (battle)? Is there a future exchange where soldiers and generals can bet on the outcome of the next offensive? Are PMCs doing this? If not, why not? Do you know?
@@guidobolke5618 If the demand for soldiers is high, and if the soldier is good at his job and isn't being inefficient with resources, then of course he can make a profit and be paid well. Their motivation would be profit, just like anyone else in the economy. If a soldier was bad at his job, he'd make a loss and wouldn't be able to fight any more. Just like in the real world, a business that goes out of business frees up resources for others in the economy. So if there's still profit to be made in war, then a new soldier would come long, be more efficient, and be able to turn a profit.
Of course, if there isn't a profit in war, then it's not possible to run a war like this. If war was economically a waste of scarce resources that have alternative uses, and if people didn't want war, then it wouldn't be profitable. In that case, the soldiers would go home and do something more profitable for the society. Or the State would come in and forcefully seize wealth off the people and redistribute that to the war industry in order to launch a war for Lebensraum. At that point though, you'd have an inefficient military and logistics system.
As a professor, and having many patents, this is the best simple description of why a free market system works I have ever seen!
To be transparent, as mentioned in the description, I heavily based that part of the script on the video "What If There Were No Prices?" by the channel Learn Liberty, because their video was great! Link: ua-cam.com/video/zkPGfTEZ_r4/v-deo.html
I agree this was pure gold. It might be time for TIK to open a second channel, just on this stuff and more
@@MarkVrem The way UA-cam is suppressing and demonitizing videos these days, it probably isn't worth trying to push more or different types of content. Small creators like TIK are getting shafted on this site in favor of 'preferred creators', sad state of affairs.
This doesn't work so well with demands that have a long lag time before they can be used. For instance, the US had the foresight to start building Essex-class carriers before WWII. These take time to build, and if they had not done so before December 1941, these carriers would have not entered service until 1944. If that had happened, and Midway gone differently, well, that's awkward. Same goes for doctors and engineers. Perhaps these things can be bought (or rented), but if these things don't exist then reducing everything to price is meaningless.
The "free market" is a myth. Patents actually are government regulations that inhibit free market activity.
It is a huge complicated challenge…… millions of uniforms, boots, helmets, rifles, bayonets, gloves, etc.
Then all the tanks, artillery, mortars, ammunition, spare parts, fuel, etc.
Yet the leadership found money for their mansions ……
Excellently researched, and well cited, explanations. I congratulate you.
I really want a video on soviet logistics, especially after this one now
Yeah, I want to know how the Soviets kicked Nazi ass without the profit motive.
@@PereDuMadeline the soviets shared poland with the nazis, starting WWII. Then the soviets invaded large parts of Europe (even they got half of Germany!) and keep it after WWII. That's a profit, a huge profit.
The soviet empire was the worst of all!... thanks God they went broke because socialism doesn't work.
@@tesoulx how is that related to logistics... Tik here claims that the german war machine was inefficient and thus was unable to supply its troops properly, this lad here asks for a similar take on the soviets' system, since they did not have such problems and at the same time had no sort of market whatsoever, unlike the germans
Just here to report that he just uploaded about that one today
@@Lukas0901 yeah, it was pretty oversimplified. Besides, the main point of tension is how he assumed that because the state manages resources, "it would need to ask the entire army and make an assesment based on that, prior to every action" as if usage of resources is not something that's actively looked on.
He also pretends like people criticizing him are "sovietboos" or "statists".
Like, no mate, you're just being extremely libertarian and pushing your narrative at every chance you get. You're no better than any idiot on twitter.
"Could they have improved it?"
Spoiler alert: No.
It wasn't so much a lack of trucks or trains as fuel. Sure, switching guage in the East is a pain in the ass but not insurmountable. But so much was horse-drawn of necessity that even with some trucks and trains sustained distant operations were impossible.
To improve it the nazis would have to not be nazis. IE they needed to not have corrupt morons in charge of the homefront, and they needed to not alienate the people in the Soviet union (especially the ukranians and the baltics) who could have become valuable laborers to help expand the rail network and cut down on partisan disruptions to supplies
Fuel also was such a huge problem that Germany could never fix its horse reliance. You can have all the trains and trucks in the world...but you ain't running them with empty fuel tanks. The horses were cheaper to run and grass ( unlike oil ) was reasonably plentiful....at least till the winters came.
It wasn't changing gauge that was the big problem.
Russian locomotives were longer as well as wider with almost twice the range of German ones. So the Germans had to build from scratch a station between each existing one [as well as repairs to the existing] and supply/staff these. That was not planned for.
Changing gauge could be done with unskilled labor - the rail stations and support required trained personnel.
Source was a report written in 1946 by the Chief of German Rail in the East for the US Army that wa declassified in 1996.
@@dorlonelliott9368 and then there was that time my country was ruined and defeated and I had to write myself out of a prison and into a new job
@@QuizmasterLaw Piss poor planning was not the exclusive domain of Hitler. It pervaded the entire Reich. Including the man who wrote that report - he was in charge of the rail in the east and had not known or planned for this problem. He was admitting failure ..
24:15 "the price is all you need to know"
this is the advantage of living in the information era, you dont have to solely rely on the price to see that something is in demand which restricts you to making reactionary decisions, you can receive information directly from your sources to see WHY it is in demand and start making strategic decisions...
surveys no longer need to be transported by trains and trucks as physical pieces of paper.. and i'd argue , thanks to technological advacements, that its also more feasible to be ingenious about your surveying systems so that your troops will find it harder to lie to you , so that's another advantage
as the old adage goes, 'work smarter, not harder'
Tic, thanks for covering this important area of Germany's eastern front. Hitler's belief that the German army would subdue Russia in several months didn't help heir planning and logistics.
No fuel? Use horses? No fodder? Eat Horses. Welcome to German logistics 1942.
@Félix Sánchez In the end, yes.
Wow, if they had an Excel Spreadsheet back then, they could have done much better back then.
that’s my conclusion as well.
@@mvfc7637 IBM supplied the Nazi's with lots of punch card equipment but they were used for tracking down Jews not planning logistics.
This is very interesting. What would a pricing system for an army look like? Would units have set budgets and purchase equipment and supplies? What happens when a unit runs out of currency but is required to continue fighting? It is genuinely very interesting but I am curious what this model would look like in practice.
It wouldn't work in practice, this guy seems like he's just a hack who has a hammer and thinks everything looks like a nail.
All he did was present all the issues with the system which was used, and then propose an alternative system without addressing any of the potential issues it would have and then just blindly stating that it is the best and only system.
You should be awarded two credit hours in college economics for every video you watch in this vein. A perfect and practical explanation of how the world works. Politics is not economics.