AHC: Make Britain industrially stronger before ww2 and less dependent on Lend Lease during ww2

[NOMISYRRUC]

Actually, to prevent this, you must prevent the fall of Asquith government, which would firstly butterfly away the repeal of Land Value Tax introduced in 1909. Going back further, they could listen to Keynes and prevent total conscription in late 1915 would lead to much lower debt by the end of the war. Winning the Turkish front would destabilize the pro-conscription faction.

I don't understand how that prevents the Anti-Waste League and the Geddes Axe.

In any case Post 176 was to show that there was scope for a large increase in taxation after the POD of 1929, not whether the Geddes Axe should have happened or not.

P.S. I haven't read the links about the LVT that you provided, sorry.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The "mistake" with tanks was not starting to develop them until 1939 thus the early British tanks were ordered off the drawing board with no prototype stage to iron out any problems, the poor reputation of British tanks during the war stems from the late ordering of tanks even the much maligned Covenanter was mechanically sound by the time it was mature in 1942' though sadly obsolete by then.

There was no obvious shortage of British tanks however the Americans were giving tanks away for free which is a very attractive economic input in a global war.

the Vickers tanks The A 10 and A 11 were very mechanically sound and to be honest if the British had concentrated on making them as a universal tank design all would have went better than OTL however you have to have a decision to develop a tank in 1937 suitable for mass production in 1938.

But to do that you have to have earlier rearmament.

I think there were three mistakes with tanks. First there was not testing the prototypes before putting them into production that you rightly mention. Second there was the split into cruiser and infantry tanks that you also mention. Finally there was mine which is the decision to increase the number of tank producers rather than making the existing facilities more productive by introducing mass production methods. E.g. the tank programme for 1941 was for 9,000 vehicles, IIRC, but only 4,800 were built in the UK and 1,200 obtained from the Americans.

I'm all for earlier rearmament or even better not disarming too much in the first place. The money was there, but the public support for it was not.

 

[Thomas1195]

I don't understand how that prevents the Anti-Waste League and the Geddes Axe.

In any case Post 176 was to show that there was scope for a large increase in taxation after the POD of 1929, not whether the Geddes Axe should have happened or not.

P.S. I haven't read the links about the LVT that you provided, sorry.

A Liberal government would not cut spending at least on education, health or so, and as the Land Value Tax would not be repealed, it would be a major source of funds. Keynes' proposal of £100m capital spending per year might be even accepted, as there were major Liberal figures that were willing to listen to him, unlike the Tories and Labour. Also, lower debt would be a decisive factor to butterfly away Geddes. McKenna staying as Chancellor might have reconsidered the Gold Standard; meanwhile, assume that special treatment on sectors like chemical and precision instruments still exist and the Liberals still supported the Weir report and form the CEB, then British economy would be much better off.

I think there were three mistakes with tanks. First there was not testing the prototypes before putting them into production that you rightly mention. Second there was the split into cruiser and infantry tanks that you also mention. Finally there was mine which is the decision to increase the number of tank producers rather than making the existing facilities more productive by introducing mass production methods. E.g. the tank programme for 1941 was for 9,000 vehicles, IIRC, but only 4,800 were built in the UK and 1,200 obtained from the Americans.

I'm all for earlier rearmament or even better not disarming too much in the first place. The money was there, but the public support for it was not.

Experimental Mechanized Force adopted would merge infantry and cruiser tanks into universal tanks, thus would reduce the number of tank models, which favour mass production.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A Liberal government would not cut spending at least on education, health or so, and as the Land Value Tax would not be repealed, it would be a major source of funds. Keynes' proposal of £100m capital spending per year might be even accepted, as there were major Liberal figures that were willing to listen to him, unlike the Tories and Labour. Also, lower debt would be a decisive factor to butterfly away Geddes. McKenna staying as Chancellor might have reconsidered the Gold Standard; meanwhile, assume that special treatment on sectors like chemical and precision instruments still exist and the Liberals still supported the Weir report and form the CEB, then British economy would be much better off.

I can't refute any of that because I don't know enough about it. However, much of what you suggested is well before the 1929 POD of this thread. Therefore I think it should be part of a new thread in the Post 1900 Forum or part of your Delay Or Prevent The Decline Of Britain thread in the Pre 1900 Forum.

 

[Thomas1195]

I can't refute any of that because I don't know enough about it. However, much of what you suggested is well before the 1929 POD of this thread. Therefore I think it should be part of a new thread in the Post 1900 Forum or part of your Delay Or Prevent The Decline Of Britain thread in the Pre 1900 Forum.

I have added a WNT 1922 POD. Enough to prevent the return to Gold

But that's why the 1920s was basically Britain's lost decade

I have just edited the Britain winning ww1 without being heavily indebted so that the post of mine about 1920 that you quoted can be discussed there.

 

[Mr. Magi]

Honestly, you could probably have France just take the Dyle plan rather than over extending and from there have sickle cut fail. That would probably do it since Britain wouldn't need to panic build a bunch of stuff that was rubbish, and could take some time to reformat their things. Plus the US would not as inclined for Lend Lease since the situation isn't as desperate over there. That France is still going and producing gear also takes some strain off of British factories, since they can take a lot of strain off of the British in terms of fighting Germany, whose financial war machine was already kind of unstable. The only other thing I think that could work would indeed require the British to anticipate another large war; it was commonly thought until the mid-to-late 30's that WWI was going to be it in Europe, so there wasn't much of a need to heavily invest in arms production.

 

[hipper]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Mechanized_Force#Formation_of_the_EMF
This might lead to a merge between Cruiser tanks and Infantry tanks, which would reduce the number of models.

It's also about tank output. Making bigger shadow factories would lengthen the production line, which would boost production.

The UK produced 8000 tanks a year in 1942, while Germany produced only 5000

there was nothing wrong with tne rate of British tank production.

However before the war Germany had made 3500 tanks while the UK had only made a few hundred.

The problem is not the quantity of tanks the uk can make, it's when the tanks are made.

 

[jsb]

I think the mistake with tank production was taken in the second half of the 1930s. Instead of bringing in more firms to build tanks I think the Government should have concentrated tank production on Vickers Armstrong's factory and a purpose built Royal Ordnance Tank Factory to replace Woolwich. Leeds and Newcastle would become the British "Tankograds."

The "mistake" with tanks was not starting to develop them untill 1939 thus the early British tanks were ordered off the drawing board with no prototype stage to iron out any problems, the poor reputation of British tanks during the war stems from the late ordering of tanks even the much maligned Covenanter was mechanically sound by the time it was mature in 1942' though sadly obsolete by then.

There was no obvious shortage of British tanks however the Americans were giving tanks away for free which is a very attractive economic input in a global war.

the Vickers tanks The A 10 and A 11 were very mechanically sound and to be honest if the British had concentrated on making them as a universal tank design all would have went better than OTL however you have to have a decision to develop a tank in 1937 suitable for mass production in 1938.

But to do that you have to have earlier reamament.

This is all just a reflection that GB put the army last for anything until 38/39, the firms brought in where the worse but available or they would have been building RAF or navy equipment already.... (generally they are old out of date railway workshops etc)

This also hits the entire universal tank v C&I it's mostly just a matter of not having a engine to push a bigger tank and willingness to pay for the much lager cost.....

 

[Mr. Magi]

The UK produced 8000 tanks a year in 1942, while Germany produced only 5000

there was nothing wrong with tne rate of British tank production.

However before the war Germany had made 3500 tanks while the UK had only made a few hundred.

The problem is not the quantity of tanks the uk can make, it's when the tanks are made.

The other big weakness besides the doctrinal logic of playing them like cavalry and charging forward would be that they were also designed to also fit on the rail tracks of the UK, which limited how large the tanks were and how large their cannons could be... at least at first. Even then, lady Matilda was a beast early war.

 

[jsb]

Honestly, you could probably have France just take the Dyle plan rather than over extending and from there have sickle cut fail. That would probably do it since Britain wouldn't need to panic build a bunch of stuff that was rubbish, and could take some time to reformat their things. Plus the US would not as inclined for Lend Lease since the situation isn't as desperate over there. That France is still going and producing gear also takes some strain off of British factories, since they can take a lot of strain off of the British in terms of fighting Germany, whose financial war machine was already kind of unstable. The only other thing I think that could work would indeed require the British to anticipate another large war; it was commonly thought until the mid-to-late 30's that WWI was going to be it in Europe, so there wasn't much of a need to heavily invest in arms production.

Just have GB, France & Belgium ally in early 30s and they simply walk into the Rhineland later, Germany and AH are humiliated and pull back I'm not sure that they survive the lack of strength and infighting combined with the lack of loot...

 

[Mike D]

The UK produced 8000 tanks a year in 1942, while Germany produced only 5000

there was nothing wrong with tne rate of British tank production.

British industry also managed to maintain a much larger navy and churn out tens of thousands of superior aircraft while German industry struggled so badly that they barely managed to introduce a new type of front line aircraft into service between 1939 and 1945...

 

[Mr. Magi]

Just have GB, France & Belgium ally in early 30s and they simply walk into the Rhineland later, Germany and AH are humiliated and pull back I'm not sure that they survive the lack of strength and infighting combined with the lack of loot...

That's the easy answer though, and well he did say make it harder... as he uses Pipisme's TL to push Keynesian economics to bolster the British even earlier than this point. Still though, a strong effort from as late as 38 would probably have done it. Or have the Italians remain in the Allied camp during the Austrian crisis too.

It's very easy for the British to not have to deal with all of that tbh.

 

[jsb]

That's the easy answer though, and well he did say make it harder.....It's very easy for the British to not have to deal with all of that tbh.

The problem I have with that is that any earlier rearmament will pretty much have to imply a willingness to use it at the same time and as soon as GB shows any willingness to use it in early 30s its game over on easy mode....

 

[Thomas1195]

British industry also managed to maintain a much larger navy and churn out tens of thousands of superior aircraft while German industry struggled so badly that they barely managed to introduce a new type of front line aircraft into service between 1939 and 1945...

Now without lend lease, these figures would fall by a third

 

[Mike D]

Now without lend lease, these figures would fall by a third

But the Royal Navy would still outnumber the KM by hundreds to one and the RAF would still be equipped with Lancaster, Mosquito, later marks of Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest etc while the apparently superior German industry was still churning out slight upgrades on 1939's models for the Luftwaffe...

Where do you get British aircraft production falling by a third without Lend Lease?

 

[Thomas1195]

But the Royal Navy would still outnumber the KM by hundreds to one and the RAF would still be equipped with Lancaster, Mosquito, later marks of Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest etc while the apparently superior German industry was still churning out slight upgrades on 1939's models for the Luftwaffe...

Where do you get British aircraft production falling by a third without Lend Lease?

Well, I read in other threads that Britain could only maintain two third of the OTL production level without Lend Lease.

 

[Thomas1195]

they were also designed to also fit on the rail tracks of the UK, which limited how large the tanks were and how large their cannons could be... at least at first.

Well, the construction of new motorways proposed by Lloyd George and Keynes could have solved this. New motorways would not only boost the mass production of cars and trucks, but also encourage the introduction of higher powered, higher performance vehicles, which would eventually include tanks and half-tracks.

 

[jsb]

Well, the construction of new motorways proposed by Lloyd George and Keynes could have solved this. New motorways would not only boost the mass production of cars and trucks, but also encourage the introduction of higher powered, higher performance vehicles, which would eventually include tanks and half-tracks.

Would increasing the track gage and potentially other modernizations such as electrification on the required main lines, not be much cheaper and more cost effective than motorways?

 

[Thomas1195]

Would increasing the track gage and potentially other modernizations such as electrification on the required main lines, not be much cheaper and more cost effective than motorways?

Improving motorway also allows the production of higher performance motor vehicles of all types. In peacetime transportation, these high performance vehicles (both personal and commercial vehicles) could only be used on high-quality motorways.

 

[Aber]

Improving motorway also allows the production of higher performance motor vehicles of all types. In peacetime transportation, these high performance vehicles (both personal and commercial vehicles) could only be used on high-quality motorways.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information - British non-motorways in the 1930s were not all that bad.