Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

[Thomas1195]

That reminds me of an old Dog & Lemon car guide, which stated (something like) if you cannot afford a new German motor vehicle, you certainly cannot afford a second hand German motor vehicle.

But comparing this to a situation when all the info you tried to pass was heard by the German who easily intercepted your field telephone transmission?

 

[RodentRevolution]

But comparing this to a situation when all the info you tried to pass was heard by the German who easily intercepted your field telephone transmission?

Except that it was not. A German raiding party had to physically locate the wire, buried deep to avoid artillery, affix the tap, then lay the tap back to their own lines. Ideally they needed to bury that for as sure as the sun rises in the east as soon as anyone started chucking shells about the tap line, just like other phone lines would get cut...only of course the tap line has both sides shooting at it at one point or another.

I think you have an interesting definition of easy.

 

[Thomas1195]

Take a quick look: during 1900s-1910s, British output of steel, the sinew of war, was insufficient to meet its own demand even in peacetime, not to mention supply its Allies. German production at least was self sufficient in ALL of the metal and engineering goods, helmets, weapons, machinery, tools like wire cutters... For example, note that the process of manufacturing Stahlhelm helmets was very complex, but the German was able to turn out a large quantity for the majority of its soldiers.

Food production is another issue. German farms were inefficient, but Britain was also dependent on imported food from the New Worlds.

Also, British trench wireless sets that were easily intercepted by German teams.

 

[Thomas1195]

Regarding Mallard, it was a prime case of slow adjustment of British industry, which stuck to steam locomotives, while US and Continental European countries were already quickly switching to diesel engines, which had greater potential.

 

[Astrodragon]

Regarding Mallard, it was a prime case of slow adjustment of British industry, which stuck to steam locomotives, while US and Continental European countries were already quickly switching to diesel engines, which had greater potential.

Oh yes, of course, its the stupid British again.

Nothing to do with the fact that diesel fuel had to be paid for in scarce foreign currency, while there was plenty of high quality British coal available.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Regarding Mallard, it was a prime case of slow adjustment of British industry, which stuck to steam locomotives, while US and Continental European countries were already quickly switching to diesel engines, which had greater potential.

Or that they could not afford to electrify because there was a slump in the 1920s and a depression in the 1930s.

Look up the North Eastern Railway EE-1. That's an order not a suggestion. After you have done that look up the work that the LMS was doing on diesel shunting locomotives and the Southern Railway having electrified about 700 route miles of its network (about 30%) by 1939.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Take a quick look: during 1900s-1910s, British output of steel, the sinew of war, was insufficient to meet its own demand even in peacetime, not to mention supply its Allies. German production at least was self sufficient in ALL of the metal and engineering goods, helmets, weapons, machinery, tools like wire cutters...

Interesting claim as last I checked motor trucks and tanks not to mention artillery guns counted as metal engineering products. Now while they also included a lot of wood and canvas in the day aeroplanes were an extremely important engineering product with a large number of complex metal parts. Shortages of such items did tend to hurt.

 

[Thomas1195]

Interesting claim as last I checked motor trucks and tanks not to mention artillery guns counted as metal engineering products. Now while they also included a lot of wood and canvas in the day aeroplanes were an extremely important engineering product with a large number of complex metal parts. Shortages of such items did tend to hurt.

Well, British production did eventually become sufficient to meet demand for its army, thanks to imports of American steel and special machinery, which were indispensable in making stuff that require precision such as HE shells (shrapnel shells were not suitable for assaulting trenches) and optics (during 1915-1916, the lack of specialist machines heavily screwed up British production of HE artillery shells). They could not even (I said could not) make their own magnetos and ball bearings until at least 1916.

The only three problems for Germany were food, metal ores and oil, which were of course crucial. They had no problem with engineering and manufacturing. Of course they could produce HE shells, magnetos, ball bearings and optics without difficulty from the beginning. Finally, Germany almost always outproduced its enemies in artillery and rifles during ww1, and unlike Britain and France, they never lacked heavy siege guns.

Or that they could not afford to electrify because there was a slump in the 1920s and a depression in the 1930s.

Look up the North Eastern Railway EE-1. That's an order not a suggestion. After you have done that look up the work that the LMS was doing on diesel shunting locomotives and the Southern Railway having electrified about 700 route miles of its network (about 30%) by 1939.

Well, this could be achieved if a bunch of radicals held power.

I mean the progress was slow. There were electric and diesel locomotives, but uncommon, unlike in the US and Continental Europe.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well, this could be achieved if a bunch of radicals held power.

Please explain?

I mean the progress was slow. There were electric and diesel locomotives, but uncommon, unlike in the US and Continental Europe.

The slow progress was for lack of money not lack of initiative by the railway managers. A railway is a service industry. There was no industry to serve because of a slump in the 1920s and then a depression in the 1930s. If your income is reduced then you have less money to invest.

There are 3 ways to make more electrification possible between 1919 and 1939:

1. Make the British economy stronger so the railway companies have more money of their own to invest;
2. Provide more Government money. IOTL most of the electrification done between the wars was paid for by Government loans and subsidies. First the abolition of Railway Passenger Duty, then the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929 and finally the Railway Facilities Act 1935. IOTL all the schemes funded under the 1935 Act had been on the wish lists of the railway managers for years, often decades;
3. Make the cost of installing the 3rd rails and overhead wires considerably cheaper. The latter would have been possible if Industrial Frequency electrification had been invented sooner and the financial advantages of it were realised sooner. IOTL electrifying the WCML to Liverpool and Manchester on 25kV AC instead of 1,500V DC reduced the number of substations required from 70 to 12 (yes TWELVE) and the cost of the copper wire and the supporting catenary was reduced by 25%.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The third reason for the slow progress of British railway electrification was Germany.

In 1913 the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway started a big electrification scheme. It wasn't completed because the German firm the equipment was ordered from didn't deliver it. I don't know why.

In 1913 the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway approved a scheme of electrification of lines from its Manchester Victoria Station, but only the line to Bury was actually completed and that was not until 1916. IIRC one reason for the slow progress was a labour shortage. Do you know where all the workers went, because I don't.

In 1914 the Midland Railway had an enabling bill passing through Parliament. The bill was to allow the electrification of the recently acquired London, Tilbury and Southend Railway, the Midland Main Line from St Pancras to St Albans and the Tottenham Branch. Progress abruptly stopped in August 1914 for some unknown reason. The LTS wasn't electrified until the 1960s and St Pancras to St Albans (and on to Bedford) wasn't electrified until the 1980s.

In 1935 the London Passenger Transport Board began a new works programme, which included the renovation of its existing lines and extensions of the Bakerloo, Central and Northern Lines. It took 22 years to complete a reduced version of the scheme. That is the Northern Heights section was cut back and the southern extension of the Bakerloo wasn't carried out.

In 1936 the LNER approved the electrification of its lines from Liverpool Street Station in London to Shenfield and from Manchester to Sheffield. The former wasn't completed until 1949 and the latter in 1954. For a reason that I have yet to discover, both schemes were suspended between 1940 and 1946.

 

[Thomas1195]

The third reason for the slow progress of British railway electrification was Germany.

In 1913 the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway started a big electrification scheme. It wasn't completed because the German firm the equipment was ordered from didn't deliver it. I don't know why.

Maybe British firms could not produce similar equipment

In 1913 the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway approved a scheme of electrification of lines from its Manchester Victoria Station, but only the line to Bury was actually completed and that was not until 1916. IIRC one reason for the slow progress was a labour shortage. Do you know where all the workers went, because I don't.

In 1914 the Midland Railway had an enabling bill passing through Parliament. The bill was to allow the electrification of the recently acquired London, Tilbury and Southend Railway, the Midland Main Line from St Pancras to St Albans and the Tottenham Branch. Progress abruptly stopped in August 1914 for some unknown reason. The LTS wasn't electrified until the 1960s and St Pancras to St Albans (and on to Bedford) wasn't electrified until the 1980s.

In 1935 the London Passenger Transport Board began a new works programme, which included the renovation of its existing lines and extensions of the Bakerloo, Central and Northern Lines. It took 22 years to complete a reduced version of the scheme. That is the Northern Heights section was cut back and the southern extension of the Bakerloo wasn't carried out.

In 1936 the LNER approved the electrification of its lines from Liverpool Street Station in London to Shenfield and from Manchester to Sheffield. The former wasn't completed until 1949 and the latter in 1954. For a reason that I have yet to discover, both schemes were suspended between 1940 and 1946.

Well, people like Phillip Snowden and Churchill were too obsessed with balancing budgets, thus they would not spend money. Investment in large programs like national railway electrification always requires state money.

The Liberals led by LG (especially his radical wing) wanted to spend money on large scale public works in various infrastructures as early as 1921 or 1924. I am not sure about 1921 but the 1924 plan had electrical development. The 1928 Plan did planned to build new electric railways in London. And, it also planned to form a National Investment Board to facilitate domestic investment in these things, as well as in industries. Further, Keynes even proposed to control foreign outward investment flows, and pull them back for domestic investments. Also, I expect they would fund them by the way they financed People's Budget (Land Value Tax).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Maybe British firms could not produce similar equipment).

On this occasion neither could the Germans.

Well, people like Phillip Snowden and Churchill were too obsessed with balancing budgets, thus they would not spend money. Investment in large programs like national railway electrification always requires state money.

The Liberals led by LG (especially his radical wing) wanted to spend money on large scale public works in various infrastructures as early as 1921 or 1924. I am not sure about 1921 but the 1924 plan had electrical development. The 1928 Plan did planned to build new electric railways in London. And, it also planned to form a National Investment Board to facilitate domestic investment in these things, as well as in industries. Further, Keynes even proposed to control foreign outward investment flows, and pull them back for domestic investments. Also, I expect they would fund them by the way they financed People's Budget (Land Value Tax).

Which shows that the state of the railways, if it was the fault of anybody, it was the fault of the Government, not the people running the railways.

 

[Mike D]

Also, British trench wireless sets that were easily intercepted by German teams.

All radio is easily intercepted - all you have to do is be within the area covered by the transmitter with a receiver that works on the right frequency.

Unless you're using modern equipment such as frequency hopping, tropospheric scatter, directional antennas etc then you can't stop the enemy from intercepting your transmissions and unless you're using BIDs/crypto you can't stop them from hearing what you're saying.

The important thing is whether what you're saying helps the enemy, hence the development of things such as one time pads, codewords etc.


Are you suggesting that German radio couldn't be intercepted by British teams?

 

[edgeworthy]

Someone is really failing to understand Irony around here!

(Shall we see if it continues with the most successful Radio Interception Operation in Military History)

 

[BooNZ]

Someone is really failing to understand Irony around here?

Another German word/invention stolen by the tommies...

 

[sparky42]

Another German word/invention stolen by the tommies...

Well as the OP has demonstrated, you couldn't expect the tommies to come up with it themselves...

 

[Thomas1195]

Oh wait, penicilin had to be brought to the US for mass production because British industrial capacity was incapable of doing so.

 

[Thomas1195]

Well, British production did eventually become sufficient to meet demand for its army, thanks to imports of American steel and special machinery, which were indispensable in making stuff that require precision such as HE shells (shrapnel shells were not suitable for assaulting trenches) and optics (during 1915-1916, the lack of specialist machines heavily screwed up British production of HE artillery shells). They could not even (I said could not) make their own magnetos and ball bearings until at least 1916.

Well, especially HE shells and magnetos production were a mess for months even with imported American machines. The output of optics, however, rose faster, but only after the Ministry of Munition intervened.

Britain's deficiencies in production techniques, specialist machine tools and expertise were more problematic than you think.

 

[Thomas1195]

I realized that many of these comments still considered British industrial obsolescence was a myth.

 

[RodentRevolution]

I realized that many of these comments still considered British industrial obsolescence was a myth.

Remind me, are we still in the original bounds of 1910-1940 the period which saw the productivity lead that the Germans had only gained around 1900 thrown away and not recovered or have you moved the goalposts once again?