BooNZ
Banned
Probably not.Well, IOTL by late 1917, the US had to keep the Entente afloat by unsecured loans. It seems that we will need a POD even before 1900 to make Britain and its European allies winning the war on its own even in economic and financial aspects.
If Joseph Gallieni had not declined the position of commander and chief of the French army in 1911, the opening year of the war would have been very different. Instead of following the cult of the offensive, Gallieni respected the use of fortifications, artillery and air reconnaissance. Gallieni also advocated the use of drab coloured uniforms and before the war he warned Joffre the Germans would come west of the Meuse in strength.
Given the above, it is likely hundreds of thousands of French casualties would have been avoided in the opening year of the war, the Germans might have struggled to advance beyond Belgium and northern France might have remained in French hands. With the German Western offensive stalled, moderately competent Entente diplomacy should have kept the Ottomans (and ultimately Bulgaria) Neutral.
Cheap and specialized imported American machine tools proved effective at simple repetitive tasks like making munitions, so British machine tools could focus on more demanding tasks. With respect of oil and food, those could have been sourced through either Empire or British global business interests, but the shortage of available shipping meant those more commonly came from the closer source (i.e. North America).What if Britain had a stronger industrial base and thus was more self-sufficient and less dependent on American supply?
You are suggesting Britain should have continually maintained a vast capacity beyond their peacetime needs in all areas, which in the real world equates to gross mismanagement. If you have excess capacity you either have idle plant or create market glut in goods produced.Well, of course they would use, but they could keep an eye on their reserves and ability to pay in hard currency/assets instead of spending frantically. They could reduce imports in rifles, small arm ammo, explosives, steel or machine tool and limit import goods to just oil and food, if their industrial base was stronger so that it could produce a surplus in these goods without having to reduce output in other things like tanks or planes. Just ask one question, why should they import steel if their output was 14-16 mil tons (IOTL British steel output was only 8 mil) while they only consume say, 12 mil tons? A similar question could be applied to rifles and ammo.
With respect of rifles and ammunition, Britain was a naval power with a small professional army. While continental powers such as Germany, France and Russia had developed vast conscript armies over decades, Britain had to build the same from scratch very quickly. A similar issue faced the USA in 1917. In 1914 Britain was superbly equipped to fight a decisive naval engagement, but was not equipped to fight an ongoing continental war - the phrase 'fish out of water' comes to mind.