Thomas1195
Banned
No, because they invented it, as well as aspirin. They were exported throughout the world.
Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940
- Thread starter Thomas1195
- Start date
when you have to quote your own posts in an attempt to justify them, thats when you should take a step back and have a think about what you're saying
Surely "they could not produce them" because of patents, rather than because they were incapable?
Thomas1195
Banned
The fact that before Fleming's penicilin, basically none of the significant medical drugs used by doctors (as opposed to retail drugs) were originated from Britain.
Oh wait, but they had to relied on USA to mass produce penicilin.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Thomas - you are missing the point.
Britain cannot continue to produce from the old industries whilst: -
- The relevant sites are being cleared for expansion / replacement;
- The workforce cannot be both maintaining production in the old industries while also building & being trained in the the new;
- The output - naval guns, armour plating, machine-guns, tanks - is required to maintain defence (similar argument to the 2-pdr ATG remaining in production instead of new 6-pdr after Dunkirk as guns were needed, no matter what type).
Again you miss the point. You refer to the outcome after the change. I am asking about what happens during the change. As in my example, please explain to me how the Royal Navy would have been in a better position in 1914 if for several years it had starved of steel, guns, engines, etc. during the changeover. These could not necessarily take place in 1890-1900 given the rapid developments in naval technology.
Nothing on this? Just because a decision looks sound on paper, doesn't mean it is sound in reality.
You didn't comment about the turbines either.
What if Britain concentrated shed production into one singular super-sized facillity to maximise economies of scale? i.e. Build a shed so massive it makes it cheaper to build smaller sheds, and to quickly fill demands for expansion? Presumably this would help them complete with the Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Factories in 1890s Germany.
Thomas1195
Banned
You build new factories first and then move into them later, target the most outdated plants first. Using more new machinery that do not need to be manned by skilled labour (American style machinery) would reduce the retrain time.
For example, regarding shipbuilding, rationalize the smallest yards would not significantly affect the works of Vickers or Armstrong-Whitworth.
It is much easier to incorporate new techniques like assembly lines when building new plants than improving existing ones, especially if the current factories were too small (good luck installing assembly lines in small workshops).
Overall, improving the means of production and infrastructures would always cause more or less disruption, but it is necessary. Especially during 1890-1910, or 1920-1936, there were plenty of time to do so. The best approach would always be infrastructures first, equipment next.
Thomas1195
Banned
Well, one of the biggest reason for Anglo-German rivalry pre ww1 was Germany's rising industrial power (surpassing Britain itself). A stronger Britain like 1870s-1890s would still stay isolation, well, based on the fact that they did nothing significantly when the Triple Alliance was formed.
I think they could because the number of single track miles that were electrified in the UK grew from 520.5 at the end of 1913 to 821.1 at the end of 1919. Over that period the number of route miles electrified increased from 254.75 to 363.5. For example:
- In 1913 the LBSCR's rival the London and South Western Railway approved its first electrification scheme in 1913 and completed it in 1916. As a result its electrified network grew from nothing at the end of 1913 to 56.1 route miles and 165 track miles by the end of 1919.
- The London & North Western Railway which also had no electrified lines at the end of 1913 had increased that to 29.75 route miles and 63.25 track miles by the end of 1919.
- The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway increased its electrified network from 41.75 route miles and 90.5 track miles to 51 route miles and 111.5 track miles.
- The North Eastern Railway's Shildon to Newport scheme approved in 1913 and completed in 1916 increased the Company's electric network from 30.75 route miles and 66.3 track miles to 49.25 route miles and 108.75 track miles.
Meanwhile the LBSCR was stymied because the equipment required for 1913 electrification scheme had been ordered from Germany. It had 26.5 route miles and 60.5 track miles electrified at the end of 1913. However, the figures for the end of 1919 were 24.75 route miles and 62.5 track miles. The chaotic conditions in postwar Germany meant that deliveries did not resume immediately after the Armistice. The next extension did not open until 1925 and it only increased the network to 40 route miles and 117.25 track miles.
Thomas1195
Banned
The German technology was surely on the egde of time, even cutting edge in many industially important fields : electromechanics [electronics at thjis time didn't exist, as we would understand it, it's just 'radio' atm], machine tooling, chemicals and had a substantial lead over Britain during the whole period in discussion.
E.g. during ww1, this had translated into various military advantages in areas like heavy artillery, HE shells (and unlike Germany, during 1915-1916, British manufacturers suffered from lots of technical deficiencies in expertise and tooling when trying to mass produce HE shells), better radio equipment and field telephones, better helmet (Stahlhelm had better cover, and unlike Brodie, Stahlhelm required much greater sophistication in metallurgy)...
E.g. during ww1, this had translated into various military advantages in areas like heavy artillery, HE shells (and unlike Germany, during 1915-1916, British manufacturers suffered from lots of technical deficiencies in expertise and tooling when trying to mass produce HE shells), better radio equipment and field telephones, better helmet (Stahlhelm had better cover, and unlike Brodie, Stahlhelm required much greater sophistication in metallurgy)...
AFAIK the LBSCR's 1913 Scheme was to have been completed in 1917. As already explained it was not completed until 1925 and was less extensive than originally planned. This was because the First World War and the chaotic conditions in Germany after it prevented the delivery of the equipment ordered from Germany. Meanwhile its rival the LSWR began its own electrification scheme in 1913 and completed it in 1916.
Both firms became part of the Southern Railway in the Grouping of 1923. At that time the LBSCR had 24.75 route miles and 69.75 single track miles electrified using overhead wires at 6,600V single-phase AC at either 16⅔ or 25 Hz. Meanwhile the LSWR had 56.1 route miles and 180.75 track miles electrified using the 600V DC 3rd rail system. The new company decided to standardise on the LSWR's system.
The DC system had the advantage of being more extensive than AC so it would be easier to convert the existing AC lines to DC than vice versa. However, the DC system was cheaper to install and cheaper to operate. A Southern Railway report of 1944 claimed that the cost of maintaining the overhead wiring at one time in use on the London, Brighton &South Coast Railway was six times as great as the cost of maintaining the third rail which replaced it.
Therefore the German equipment was more expensive to buy and maintain than the British equipment.
hipper
Banned
Germany did not have an advantage in the construction of heavy guns, they just concentrated their guns on land rather than at sea
Germany also had a much larger standing army equipped for continental warfare. The UK did not.
As you well know British railwY companies using British machine tools were producing a large amount of HE shells by 1915
It went both ways. That is as well as the railway companies making munitions, railway managers ran some of the Royal Ordnance Factories. E.g. Sir Vincent Raven, Chief Mechanical Engineer of the North Eastern Railway was manager of Woolwich Arsenal (the armaments factory, not the association football team) during the Great War.
And while Sir Nigel Gresley (who would go on to design the Mallard) was designing his A1 class of Pacific steam locomotives (which included Flying Scotsman), Raven was designing his masterpiece, No. 13, the sole Electric Express Mk 1 (EE-1) locomotive for the proposed York to Newcastle electrification.
Thomas1195
Banned
However, Germany unarguably had a big lead in precision engineering AND electromechanic.
Would generally help if you added some numbers, diagrams or examples to show this?
I think you could help your argument by trying to detail each sector/industry with easy to read and understand numbers (not hard to find quotes) and maybe show the entire world rather than just a 1 v1 that will lead to arguments from the perceived slighted side?
Thomas1195
Banned
To be fair, German superiority in precision engineering originated from its long tradition of toy making.
Regarding electromechanic (this can be considered as the earlier form of electronic), during ww1, German was more well-equipped in wireless communication. For example, in Jutland, German successfully used wireless communication, while British communication was poor. Next, during the interbellum, German was able to make a commercialised ciphering machine for office works that was eventually developed into Enigma.
Regarding electromechanic (this can be considered as the earlier form of electronic), during ww1, German was more well-equipped in wireless communication. For example, in Jutland, German successfully used wireless communication, while British communication was poor. Next, during the interbellum, German was able to make a commercialised ciphering machine for office works that was eventually developed into Enigma.
Which Britain broke!?
(Not just Enigma, Room 40 routinely had the technical means to read the High Seas Fleet's communications).
For which building the world's first computer is somehow not precision electronic engineering?
Signals Intelligence was an area in which Britain excelled in both wars.
IIRC poor communication at Jutland and other battles was down to the people, that is poor training, bad operating procedures and in certain cases individual people not setting the signal flags properly - not bad equipment. It's a variation on, "It's not how big it is. It's what you do with it!"
I can't say this with authority, but the British might have been minimising the use of their radios and using visual signals in an effort to achieve surprise.
IIRC it was a German radio message that told British Naval Intelligence that the Germans were putting to sea, but the message wasn't interpreted properly which led to the fleet putting to sea later than it should have done. Also IIRC Scheer sent a radio message to Germany telling them the route he was going to take home. Said message was intercepted, but it wasn't passed on to Jellicoe.
IIRC the Germans didn't learn the lesson about keeping radio silence because Admiral Lütjens made a similar error during the Bismarck chase. Edit That mistake probably made the difference between Bismarck making it to France and being sunk.
Last edited: