AHC/WI: Delay/ slow down British economic decline post 1870

Saphroneth

Banned
It is intrinsically very hard to be the best at everything - someone who specializes will always be better than a generalist. The only nation I know of to manage to have the most modern industries in essentially every field simultaneously were the British - briefly - but that had to go away as soon as other countries kicked off their own industrial revolutions.


Also worth noting, of course, is that countries develop their own ways of doing things. OTL for example Rolls-Royce Merlins were built with parts binned by the micrometer - that is, they would measure everything and then use the in-spec but slightly small piston caps on the in-spec but slightly small pistons, and so on.
Merlins built in the USA had to be built with much tighter tolerances, so their output rate was actually less when normalized to the cost of the machine tools and so on - getting the precision the Packard Merlins needed was much more costly in tooling.

Now, of those, which is superior?
Neither. Both produce very high performance engines using the tools and men on hand. The tradeoff is cost based.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
It is intrinsically very hard to be the best at everything - someone who specializes will always be better than a generalist. The only nation I know of to manage to have the most modern industries in essentially every field simultaneously were the British - briefly - but that had to go away as soon as other countries kicked off their own industrial revolutions.


Also worth noting, of course, is that countries develop their own ways of doing things. OTL for example Rolls-Royce Merlins were built with parts binned by the micrometer - that is, they would measure everything and then use the in-spec but slightly small piston caps on the in-spec but slightly small pistons, and so on.
Merlins built in the USA had to be built with much tighter tolerances, so their output rate was actually less when normalized to the cost of the machine tools and so on - getting the precision the Packard Merlins needed was much more costly in tooling.

Now, of those, which is superior?
Neither. Both produce very high performance engines using the tools and men on hand. The tradeoff is cost based.
British industry was the most modern overall before 1880. By 1913, it lagged far in nearly every new industry, especially electrical equipment. Its steel, machine tool and even textile and shipbuilding were becoming outdated quickly. Do you know that in 1913, German machine tool export was 4 times higher than British, and German machines were at least equal if not better.

US industry was most modern in nearly every sector from 1900 to at least 1950.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If Britain still a bigger industrial power in 1914, the Entente's victory would be much more decisive. In OTL, Britain, together with 3 great powers plus huge American economic support, could not land into German soil. If Britain had stronger industry than Germany, the Entente could have fielded significantly more better tanks earlier with greater number, as well as more guns and shells and planes. This could change the situation of the war.

Well, IOTL, Britain was heavily indebted after ww1 and virtually bankrupt after ww2, despite in the winning band and having at least 2 powerful allies in both wars.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
installing newly invented Ford assembly line.
This just further reinforces the sense of unreality about your pronouncements. The assembly line you talk about was first operational in October 1913 - to have that set up by 1914 would be silly.

In OTL, Britain, together with 3 great powers plus huge American economic support, could not land into German soil.
"could not land into German soil"? Are you suggesting either that the Entente had not destroyed the German army in the field or that a naval landing on the north German coast is at all plausible?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
This just further reinforces the sense of unreality about your pronouncements. The assembly line you talk about was first operational in October 1913 - to have that set up by 1914 would be silly.


"could not land into German soil"? Are you suggesting either that the Entente had not destroyed the German army in the field or that a naval landing on the north German coast is at all plausible?
Well, Ford did install a line in Manchester some time before the war.

Second, on the western front, after the battle of the frontiers, Entente could never occupy a metre of German homeland in ww1.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
Second, on the western front, after the battle of the frontiers, Entente could never occupy a metre of German homeland in ww1.
They didn't need to, the German Army as of November 1918 was so thoroughly destroyed that the only limit on the British/Entente advance was logistics. The Germans requested an armistice because they could no longer fight on.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The fact that the WWI US was dependent on the French for tanks and artillery suggests that something is missing from your economic model.
First, the US mainly provide steel, oil, money and machine tools that superior to British machines.

Second, my point is that a stronger British industry could have raised its production to, say, 4000 tanks by 1918 instead of over 2000 like OTL, or more shells than OTL (for example, 70 mil in 1916, 100 mil in 1917 and 80 mil in 1918 instead of just 53 mil, 87 mil and 69 mil like OTL), or 20k aircrafts by 1917 and 40k by 1918 instead of 15k and 32k in OTL.

Besides, if the Britains had a sizable production of ball bearings, magnetos, optics or synthetic dye or electrical equipment, they would not have to spend money, capital, labour to build new factories from scratch to produce them. These resources could be spent more on expanding shipbuilding or direct armament production, thus they would produce greater armament output and escort warships than OTL. And due to experience gain factor, having a significant production of these goods prewar would result in a more efficient production of them during the war.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In what way? The British introduced a steel helmet before the Germans did.
Well, stahlhelm required sophisticated metallurgy, while brodie was just made from a piece of metal. And I did not know about helmet shortage on both countries.

Stahlhelm had greater overall coverage and it laid the foundation for modern helmet
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, Britain was terribly indebted after ww1 and virtually bankrupt after ww2 despite being on the winning side and had at least 2 great powers as allies in both conflicts.

A major cause was its failure in modernizing industries
 
Well, Britain was terribly indebted after ww1 and virtually bankrupt after ww2 despite being on the winning side and had at least 2 great powers as allies in both conflicts.

A major cause was its failure in modernizing industries

It was also near bankrupt after the seven years war.

It's almost like fighting colossal wars lead you to massive debt. Alongside your great power allies *cough*France*cough*Weimar Germany*cough*
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Well, Britain was terribly indebted after ww1 and virtually bankrupt after ww2 despite being on the winning side and had at least 2 great powers as allies in both conflicts.
The British Empire had a choice between losing, or winning at great expense. They went with the latter.
Make no mistake, the only reason the US avoided being financially torn apart by WW2 was that it was thousands of miles from the fighting front, able to supply itself with every raw material domestically and largely sidestepped the heavy ground fighting. As a result, captive markets for the US post-WW2 consisted of basically "everyone in the world".
 

Deleted member 14881

The Entente did not need to land into Germany in 1918 because Germany was hollowed out by starvation. In the 1918 Spring offensive German soldiers were stopping to munch on Allied rations.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Entente did not need to land into Germany in 1918 because Germany was hollowed out by starvation. In the 1918 Spring offensive German soldiers were stopping to munch on Allied rations.
It's not the only thing, though it is a thing. (Interestingly, pre-war Germany could pretty much feed itself - enough demobilization and enough fertilizer instead of explosives, and that would have stayed the case. Instead - like the British - the German government decided a hard victory was better than a relatively easy loss.)
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The British Empire had a choice between losing, or winning at great expense. They went with the latter.
Make no mistake, the only reason the US avoided being financially torn apart by WW2 was that it was thousands of miles from the fighting front, able to supply itself with every raw material domestically and largely sidestepped the heavy ground fighting. As a result, captive markets for the US post-WW2 consisted of basically "everyone in the world".

Looking at the first world war, dont you see that the balance of power was very heavily skewed toward the Entente. Compared to Germany, Britain had much stronger allies. Yet they barely beat Germany (with Russia being decisively defeated). Russia was at least much more useful than A-H
 

Thomas1195

Banned
It was also near bankrupt after the seven years war.

It's almost like fighting colossal wars lead you to massive debt. Alongside your great power allies *cough*France*cough*Weimar Germany*cough*
Dont you know that Britain during the seven years war fought against 3 great powers and won? During ww1, they allied with 2 great powers but barely defeated Germany. And Germany would have prevailed without Britain in Entente.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Looking at the first world war, dont you see that the balance of power was very heavily skewed toward the Entente. Compared to Germany, Britain had much stronger allies. Yet they barely beat Germany (with Russia being decisively defeated). Russia was at least much more useful than A-H

No, the balance of power was not 'very heavily skewed towards the Entente' - or if it was, it was because of the British financial and naval power that you keep dismissing as unimportant!

Dont you know that Britain during the seven years war fought against 3 great powers and won? During ww1, they allied with 2 great powers but barely defeated Germany. And Germany would have prevailed without Britain in Entente.

Seven Years War: Britain + Prussia + Portugal fought France, Spain/Russia and the Holy Roman Empire.

WW1: Britain + France + Russia + Italy fought Germany + Austria + Ottoman Empire


You may need to define what counts as a great power.

As for "barely defeated Germany", "barely" here is frankly a loaded term. Germany in 1918 did not nearly win - Germany in 1918 managed a last-gasp, having been comprehensively outmatched in a war of material and with her military advantages pared away.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
No, the balance of power was not 'very heavily skewed towards the Entente'

WW1: Britain + France + Russia + Italy fought Germany + Austria + Ottoman Empire


You may need to define what counts as a great power.

As for "barely defeated Germany", "barely" here is frankly a loaded term. Germany in 1918 did not nearly win - Germany in 1918 managed a last-gasp, having been comprehensively outmatched in a war of material and with her military advantages pared away.

No, it was heavily skewed towards Britain and Co. At least their allies were more useful than Austria Hungary.

Germany was defeated because Britain had USA on its side. And one of the reason is that Wilson was an anglophile, thus he tolerated British blockade and manipulated American public view towards anti German stance. An anglophobe president would have protested openly, which would make their blockade fail, and he could treat the Zimmerman as a British forgery.

Next, Britain can only get unsecured loans when US joined the war in 1917. They were basically broke by that time, and only US unsecured loans kept them fight on.

Note that the US Germany relationship before the war was cordial. Without Zimmerman and USW, the US would never join the war.

If the US was strictly neutral and demanded to trade with both sides, Britain could not do anything, and Germany would gain massively. Germany would only buy raw materials, which were non contraband, and exchange their pharmaceutical and optic products for them.
 
Last edited:
Top