Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
Germany only ended up fighting the US when it launched its unrestricted submarine warfare campaign of 1917, it only went to unrestricted submarine warfare because it could not endure the British blockade. Had Germany held off on unrestricted submarine warfare you ought still to have seen the Russian Empire collapse however the Germans found it a struggle to extract loot from Russia and most of what they did extract was consumed by their occupation armies in the East. Austria-Hungary was also a valuable source of supply and Germany extracted resources from the Habsburg Empire to the detriment of the Habsburg dominions own war effort with the result that the ability of AH to continue resistance was exhausted by December 1918. Evidence from the military operations of 1918 strongly suggests that Germany could not defeat the Entente in that year and with the fall of Austria-Hungary would have needed to sue for terms.

In the Second World War the Germans had conquered France and the Soviet Union was a neutral heavily supplying their needs and yet this proved insufficient for the German war economy in the face of British blockade. The led to the Germans concluding that they had to invade the USSR to gain its resources without having to pay for them. This led to the invasion of June 22nd 1941.

In both cases the Germany war economy did not exist in isolation and rather than relying on trade as the British did in World War 1 had access to and a reliance on loot to maintain itself.

The evidence of World War 2 is clear that Germany would not have laughed off a British blockade. The issue with an invasion of France was never the number of troops but the lack of roads to put them on...soldiers stuck in traffic are just an additional road block to supplies for soldiers at the front. Of course having a 1914 kick off without Russian involvement is a tad hard as the French would not go to war to support Serbia but went to war to support Russia who were supporting Serbia. The British went to war to support France and ensure the Germans did not make off with Belgium.

A war fought too close to 1900 sees France a lot stronger relative to a weaker Germany, not to mention the British.
I said that with a POD before 1900 that eventually lead to ww1 without Russia, then Germany would have laughed at British blockade as they can trade freely with the Russian Empire (as they share land borders) without being interfered by Britain, and unlike Hitler, in this case Germany would not attack Russia.

Back to the topic, you cannot deny that Britain's heavy reliance on the destructive lend lease had a profound negative impact on their post war economy. If they had a bigger capacity to produce basic industrial products and capital goods like steel and industrial machinery to support the production of war machines, they could have avoided Lend Lease, or reduced their dependence on LL to at least Soviet's level (while LL was crucial for Soviet, Soviet's dependence on LL was far less than British Empire, despite losing a big chunk of industrial regions).

Btw, the total value of munition output of Germany was much higher than Britain, but it was heavily skewed toward land war equipment. German production of land warfare weapons and equipment well exceeded Britain, with the exception of trucks. Britain was very lucky to be an island as they never ever fought a land war with a similar scale of the Soviet-German front during the ww2 like either the German or the Russian had to.
 
I said that with a POD before 1900 that eventually lead to ww1 without Russia, then Germany would have laughed at British blockade as they can trade freely with the Russian Empire (as they share land borders) without being interfered by Britain, and unlike Hitler, in this case Germany would not attack Russia.

Well what POD are you suggesting as the French and British are both stronger relative to Germany before 1900.

Back to the topic, you cannot deny that Britain's heavy reliance on the destructive lend lease had a profound negative impact on their post war economy. If they had a bigger capacity to produce basic industrial products and capital goods like steel and industrial machinery to support the production of war machines, they could have avoided Lend Lease, or reduced their dependence on LL to at least Soviet's level (while LL was crucial for Soviet, Soviet's dependence on LL was far less than British Empire, despite losing a big chunk of industrial regions).

I can certainly deny that Lend-Lease was the problem...the Tizard Mission and Cash and Carry were the problem. Of course the Tizard Mission did have some benefits in that it enabled the US to provide the kinds of goods the British needed during the war but it did come at a cost which was a lot of Britiain's future competitive advantage. Cash and Carry drained British supplies of cash and gold to no real gain to the US while Lend-Lease on the other end enabled US allies to bear more of the burden of the war to the gain of both the US and those allies.

Btw, the total value of munition output of Germany was much higher than Britain, but it was heavily skewed toward land war equipment. German production of land warfare weapons and equipment well exceeded Britain, with the exception of trucks. Britain was very lucky to be an island as they never ever fought a land war with a similar scale of the Soviet-German front during the ww2 like either the German or the Russian had to.

Had the British been a land power they would have been someone else. The British were a sea power and recognised that it made far more sense to look to trade to supply their needs than try and create an autarky based on primary industries. The Germans ought to have outproduced the British, they had more people, did not need to pay fair price for a lot of the raw materials they imported from their conquests and could add captive labour to their own supply. What is remarkable is how little those advantages counted for against the ability to trade with the world.

You constantly ignore the fact that Britain's trade links with its Empire and independent states were not unique to it. In both world wars Germany was reliant on allies and conquered territories for supplies. Was it Britain's fault that it could trade with people who could supply manufactured goods useful in war or a lack of foresight on the part of regimes that went to war against it for not having allowed for this?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I can certainly deny that Lend-Lease was the problem...the Tizard Mission and Cash and Carry were the problem. Of course the Tizard Mission did have some benefits in that it enabled the US to provide the kinds of goods the British needed during the war but it did come at a cost which was a lot of Britiain's future competitive advantage. Cash and Carry drained British supplies of cash and gold to no real gain to the US while Lend-Lease on the other end enabled US allies to bear more of the burden of the war to the gain of both the US and those allies
I forgot Cash and Carry, but again, if Britain had a bigger industrial base and could produce more industrial capital goods like machinery and steel, they could have limited the reliance on cash and carry, thus sustain their reserves for longer. Note that in 1940, right before lend lease, import of American machine tool equalled 50% of total British output, not to mention steel. These money could have been reallocated to just oil and food if Britain had a stronger machinery industry.

Besides, lend lease was not free. Lend lease supplied Britain the most, thus British repayment obligations would be much larger than others. Besides, it also damaged British post war export industries. A stronger industrial base would reduce British reliance on Lend Lease to at least no more or just a little more than Soviet Union, as the majority of their productive regions were not occupied. If they had a surplus in machine tool output, they could export to Canada to build up industries there, or export to Soviet.

Finally, if Britain possessed a modern and mechanized shipbuilding industry, they would have found it easier to replace shipping losses and build more escorts, thus winning the Battle of the Atlantic earlier.

About Tizard mission, the majority of them were specialist military technology that could not be commercialized, except for jet.
 
Last edited:
I forgot Cash and Carry, but again, if Britain had a bigger industrial base and could produce more industrial capital goods like machinery and steel, they could have limited the reliance on cash and carry, thus sustain their reserves for longer. Note that in 1940, right before lend lease, import of American machine tool equalled 50% of total British output, not to mention steel. These money could have been reallocated to just oil and food if Britain had a stronger machinery industry.

Have you any evidence to support this contention? What is the opportunity cost of focusing on the industries you approve of, which industries do not receive investment in their place?

Besides, lend lease was not free. Lend lease supplied Britain the most, thus British repayment obligations would be much larger than others. Besides, it also damaged British post war export industries. A stronger industrial base would reduce British reliance on Lend Lease to at least no more or just a little more than Soviet Union, as the majority of their productive regions were not occupied. If they had a surplus in machine tool output, they could export to Canada to build up industries there, or export to Soviet.

No Lend-Lease was not free but nor was it ridiculously expensive compared with normal trade, as a measure that helped both the US and her allies it made a lot of sense.

Finally, if Britain possessed a modern and mechanized shipbuilding industry, they would have found it easier to replace shipping losses and build more escorts, thus winning the Battle of the Atlantic earlier.

Again though what is given up to achieve this. British merchant and escort production was none too shabby and they certainly turned out more battleships and aircraft carriers than Germany. You use words like modern and mechanised without ever addressing what you mean by these definitions. Largely I suspect so you can shift the goalposts once again when those definitions would lay out rather clearly the flaws in your contentions.

About Tizard mission, the majority of them were specialist military technology that could not be commercialized, except for jet.

I take it you do not have a microwave oven? There were an awful lot of technologies covered that could and were commercialised. Then again the issue Tizard faced was the British needed things to come into action quickly. It is a bit hard to predict twenty years or more ahead what wars will and will not break out and that is the kind of time frame you are asking the British to plan for. Now the much praised (by you) Soviet Union did focus its industrial planning after 1945 on a conventional land war in Europe...only that land war never happened and the Soviets went bankrupt as a result.

I am not sure your remedies are not in fact worse than the problem.
 
I said that with a POD before 1900 that eventually lead to ww1 without Russia, then Germany would have laughed at British blockade as they can trade freely with the Russian Empire (as they share land borders) without being interfered by Britain, and unlike Hitler, in this case Germany would not attack Russia.

Back to the topic, you cannot deny that Britain's heavy reliance on the destructive lend lease had a profound negative impact on their post war economy. If they had a bigger capacity to produce basic industrial products and capital goods like steel and industrial machinery to support the production of war machines, they could have avoided Lend Lease, or reduced their dependence on LL to at least Soviet's level (while LL was crucial for Soviet, Soviet's dependence on LL was far less than British Empire, despite losing a big chunk of industrial regions).

Btw, the total value of munition output of Germany was much higher than Britain, but it was heavily skewed toward land war equipment. German production of land warfare weapons and equipment well exceeded Britain, with the exception of trucks. Britain was very lucky to be an island as they never ever fought a land war with a similar scale of the Soviet-German front during the ww2 like either the German or the Russian had to.


to use a common expression - if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Have you any evidence to support this contention? What is the opportunity cost of focusing on the industries you approve of, which industries do not receive investment in their place?
The source of the 50% figure in 1940 was Alfred Herbert and the British Machine Tool Industry. And as these imports were in 1940, they were purchased under cash and carry. With a strong machine tool and other basic industrial sectors, these cash could be used to purchased other things like oil.

You use words like modern and mechanised without ever addressing what you mean by these definitions.
Lots of British shipyards still stuck with craft-based methods, which were obsolete, rather than adopting machine-based mass production techniques, which would increase output WITHOUT using more labour. The merchant shipping output did not really outpaced the losses until new American yards began to churn out ships.

I take it you do not have a microwave oven? There were an awful lot of technologies covered that could and were commercialised. Then again the issue Tizard faced was the British needed things to come into action quickly. It is a bit hard to predict twenty years or more ahead what wars will and will not break out and that is the kind of time frame you are asking the British to plan for. Now the much praised (by you) Soviet Union did focus its industrial planning after 1945 on a conventional land war in Europe...only that land war never happened and the Soviets went bankrupt as a resul
Finally, the technologies you mentioned were mostly in the forms of military techs, and not yet modified into civilian ones until they reached America, where military techs are usually spilled over civilian sectors (quite unlike Britain). Besides, you know how wonderful Britain was when it come to commercialize inventions. Synthetic dye was a classic case.

I am not sure your remedies are not in fact worse than the problem.
So enlarging and modernizing your industrial capacity are bad??? Oh man. You could imagine how big British output would be compared to OTL if there is a Krupp-like complex in Britain.
 
Well, as I said, if Russia stays neutral, they might already have 5-6 armies in the West instead of 4, and their railway system could carry 2 armies.

Could the railways carry food, fodder, ammunition etc for seven armies? Did the Germans have the log system to move all of those supplies from the railheads to the front line?

Those technological ubermen would have looked pretty silly if their extra armies had all surrendered or starved to death...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Could the railways carry food, fodder, ammunition etc for seven armies? Did the Germans have the log system to move all of those supplies from the railheads to the front line?

Those technological ubermen would have looked pretty silly if their extra armies had all surrendered or starved to death...
Well, in case of neutral Russia (which require a pre 1900 POD), they would devote more to Western Front, including building more Big Bertha which would allow them to raze A-L fortifications.

Oh, btw, Rhian is making a scenario where Germany would win big both on land and maybe on the sea.
 

hipper

Banned
The source of the 50% figure in 1940 was Alfred Herbert and the British Machine Tool Industry. And as these imports were in 1940, they were purchased under cash and carry. With a strong machine tool and other basic industrial sectors, these cash could be used to purchased other things like oil.

What do you mean by a strong machine tool industry?

From British war economy and the paper quoted below the British machine tool industry was about 50% the size of the American machine tool industry Britain produced 20000 machine tools a year while America produced about 40000 (calculated from the table on page one)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40796812?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

quite good going considering exports to the US were impractical. In 1940 the U.K. Imported 33000 machine tools from America while making over 60,000 tools in the U.K., American imports declined in importance and absolute numbers after 1940.

from Hancock British war economy

"The general position, however, improved some time before that point was reached. Although the total demand had been fast approaching the highest point, the supplies of machine tools and plant were growing faster still. For this, American deliveries were partly responsible. During 1940 and 1941 the number of machine tools supplied to the United Kingdom from the United States was at a record level of four times the number supplied from the United States in 1939, and at least three and a half times the 1939 tonnage. The main source, however, was not American supplies but the ever-expanding production at home. Indeed, the growth of the British machine-tool industry during the war was very remarkable. From less than 20,000 machines in 1935 and about 35,000 in 1939 the British output of machine tools approached 100,000 by 1942."

The effect of purchase from America was to counteract the jump start Germany had in industrial mobilisation for war.

Note that the British machine tool production in 1940 was 50% greater than amaerican machine tool production in 1935 so there is no possibility that a strong British machine tool industry could have supplied the requirements of a war economy without considerable expansion.


The problems of British industry you are discussing are actually the problems of rapid re armament

American machine tools were used to save 6 months production in 1940.

however large the British machine tool industry is the. Time would be saved by importing machine tools from the United States rather than making them in the UK

It's a very simple point I keep making you seem to be unable to grasp it.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
What do you mean by a strong machine tool industry?

From British war economy and the paper quoted below the British machine tool industry was about 50% the size of the American machine tool industry Britain produced 20000 machine tools a year while America produced about 40000 (calculated from the table on page one)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40796812?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

quite good going considering exports to the US were impractical. In 1940 the U.K. Imported 33000 machine tools from America while making over 60,000 tools in the U.K., American imports declined in importance and absolute numbers after 1940.

from Hancock British war economy

"The general position, however, improved some time before that point was reached. Although the total demand had been fast approaching the highest point, the supplies of machine tools and plant were growing faster still. For this, American deliveries were partly responsible. During 1940 and 1941 the number of machine tools supplied to the United Kingdom from the United States was at a record level of four times the number supplied from the United States in 1939, and at least three and a half times the 1939 tonnage. The main source, however, was not American supplies but the ever-expanding production at home. Indeed, the growth of the British machine-tool industry during the war was very remarkable. From less than 20,000 machines in 1935 and about 35,000 in 1939 the British output of machine tools approached 100,000 by 1942."

The effect of purchase from America was to counteract the jump start Germany had in industrial mobilisation for war.

Note that the British machine tool production in 1940 was 50% greater than amaerican machine tool production in 1935 so there is no possibility that a strong British machine tool industry could have supplied the requirements of a war economy without considerable expansion.


The problems of British industry you are discussing are actually the problems of rapid re armament

American machine tools were used to save 6 months production in 1940.

however large the British machine tool industry is the. Time would be saved by importing machine tools from the United States rather than making them in the UK

It's a very simple point I keep making you seem to be unable to grasp it.
At the same time, German machine tool stock is about over 800000, and this accumulation of machinery was a major driver of Speer miracle. If British machine tool output was 500000 instead of 370000, its scarce reserves could be spent on other things. If its peacetime machine tool production base was 50%-100% bigger than OTL from 1930-33 at least, reaching 500k in wartime would note be that difficult. If you could ask why they need a much stronger machine tool industry so early like that, I would say ''to modernize shipbuilding industry via mechanization, adopting mass-production techniques and ABOLISHING outdated craft-based practices". In fact, in aircraft industry, the government did nationalize/threaten to nationalize Short Bros because they reject mass production techniques, while I think they should have done the same with shipbuilding. British shipbuilding by 1930s were really obsolete and rotten, it was actually in dire need of Stalinist-style forced modernization with mass retooling of shipyards.

If British shipbuilding was modernized like what I have said, you can imagine that they could build more escorts and merchant shipping during as well as completing BBs and CVs faster than OTL. In OTL, the US revolutionized shipbuilding via large-scale adoption of mass production techniques.

And it's not about machines, it's also about general capital goods products such as steel. Britain could have substantially raised its output without really using up more inputs by consolidating a large number of small workshops into few gigantic plants like Krupp Essen. Its steel industry was notorious in being dominated by SMEs and small scale manufacturing techniques.

In OTL, Britain did outproduce in various war machines, but the deficiency in capital good production made it become a junior partner of the US.

Btw, Rhian has demonstrated that German winning ww1 can be a real possibility.
 
Last edited:

hipper

Banned
At the same time, German machine tool stock is about over 800000, and this accumulation of machinery was a major driver of Speer miracle. If British machine tool output was 500000 instead of 370000, its scarce reserves could be spent on other things. If its peacetime machine tool production base was 50%-100% bigger than OTL from 1930-33 at least, reaching 500k in wartime would note be that difficult. If you could ask why they need a much stronger machine tool industry so early like that, I would say ''to modernize shipbuilding industry via mechanization, adopting mass-production techniques and ABOLISHING outdated craft-based practices". In fact, in aircraft industry, the government did nationalize/threaten to nationalize Short Bros because they reject mass production techniques, while I think they should have done the same with shipbuilding. British shipbuilding by 1930s were really obsolete and rotten, it was actually in dire need of Stalinist-style forced modernization with mass retooling of shipyards.

If British shipbuilding was modernized like what I have said, you can imagine that they could build more escorts and merchant shipping during as well as completing BBs and CVs faster than OTL. In OTL, the US revolutionized shipbuilding via large-scale adoption of mass production techniques.

And it's not about machines, it's also about general capital goods products such as steel. Britain could have substantially raised its output without really using up more inputs by consolidating a large number of small workshops into few gigantic plants like Krupp Essen. Its steel industry was notorious in being dominated by SMEs and small scale manufacturing techniques.

In OTL, Britain did outproduce in various war machines, but the deficiency in capital good production made it become a junior partner of the US.

Btw, Rhian has demonstrated that German winning ww1 can be a real possibility.


I'm not sure if the problem is comprehension,

you have conflated two different numbers. 35,000 the annual output of machine tools in the U.K. In 1939

800,000 was the total stock of machine tools held by Germany in factories do you understand the difference?

Now assuming your statement "If British machine tool output was 500000 instead of 370000, its scarce reserves could be spent on other things"

Actually meant "If British machine tool output was 50,000 instead of 37,000 its scarce reserves could be spent on other things"


Then I disagree, they would still need more machine tools in 1939 for rearmament and war production,

given the choice between waiting while expanding existing machine tool production or buying in extra from the US
Then buying from the US is the quickest way to increase war production.

The only other solution would be earlier rearmament.

Note that by the end of 1940 British machine tool production was 60000 and reached a peak of 100.000 in 1942
After 1942 machine tool production in the U.K. declined. Not because the excess was made up from us imports but because the demand for new machine tools had declined. The manpower and machine tools were in use making tanks & guns.

Cheers Hipper.
 
Last edited:

hipper

Banned
If you could ask why they need a much stronger machine tool industry so early like that, I would say ''to modernize shipbuilding industry via mechanization, adopting mass-production techniques and ABOLISHING outdated craft-based practices". In fact, in aircraft industry, the government did nationalize/threaten to nationalize Short Bros because they reject mass production techniques, while I think they should have done the same with shipbuilding. British shipbuilding by 1930s were really obsolete and rotten, it was actually in dire need of Stalinist-style forced modernization with mass retooling of shipyards.

If British shipbuilding was modernized like what I have said, you can imagine that they could build more escorts and merchant shipping during as well as completing BBs and CVs faster than OTL. In OTL, the US revolutionized shipbuilding via large-scale adoption of mass production techniques.
.

Shipbuilding in the 1930s was is the throes of a severe depression,
at the end of ww1 the American Goverment had constructed the worlds largest shipyard whicb constructed ships from prefabricated parts,

Despite the loss of thousands of merchant ships in ww1 the hog island shipyard only produced 122 ships. And was inactive by 1922

It could not compete with the obsolete outdated craft based shipyards on the Clyde,

Interestingly the same thing happened to the Kaiser yards in America, they shut down after WW2.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I'm not sure if the problem is comprehension,

you have conflated two numbers 35,000 the annual output of machine tools in the U.K. In 1939

800,000 was the total stock of machine tools held by Germany in factories do you understand the difference?

Now assuming your statement "If British machine tool output was 500000 instead of 370000, its scarce reserves could be spent on other things"

Actually meant "If British machine tool output was 50,000 instead of 37,000 its scarce reserves could be spent on other things"


Then I disagree, they would still need more machine tools in 1939 for rearmament and war production,

given the choice between waiting while expanding existing machine tool production or buying in extra from the US
Then buying from the US is the quickest way to increase war production.

The only other solution would be earlier rearmament.

Note that by the end of 1940 British machine tool production was 60000 and reached a peak of 100.000 in 1942
After 1942 machine tool production in the U.K. declined. Not because the excess was made up from us imports but because the demand for new machine tools had declined. The manpower and machine tools were in use making tanks & guns.

Cheers Hipper.
First, 800000 was German output and 379000 was British output (here is the total output during the whole 1940-1944 period), German stock was usually nearly 1.5 million during the war (and British stock was just a third of that).

This paper has all info about machine tool industry
https://www.google.com.vn/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjBrc3-8pTRAhWGlJQKHWbxBEU4ChAWCEEwCw&url=http://www.ifn.se/storage/cms/c8e080f7a21944c19b088b1dde724d56/d38fed0ac7914b028b082c3b503291b8/pdf/C0A677E5F16EC653FFB6E0FC1E051A498EC2DC59/WP096.pdf?MediaArchive_ForceDownload=true&PropertyName=File1&ValueIndex=0&usg=AFQjCNGuEdaqqjY6jzft0nKmXsw7D0057A&sig2=Uf9ni83LM2T8kmjBqo4n5A&bvm=bv.142059868,d.dGo
You can see that German machinery industry far outperformed Britain at least from 1913. The 46% export market share in 1913 have proved clear German superiority in machine tool.

OTL: British output:
1935: <20k
1939: 37k
1940: 62k
1941: 81k
1942: 96k
1943: 76k
1944: 59k

Now you can imagine that: British machine tool production being much higher than OTL for many years before 1939.
1935: 45k
1939: 65k
1940: 85k
1941: 110k
1942: 130k
1943: 100k
1944: 90k

(No substantial increase in labour force employed compared to OTL. You can do this by transforming 100 cottage workshops in to a Krupp Essen. Same thing with steel industry: consolidation of small producers into giant ones)

These increases in machine tool output would lead to a much bigger share of global machine tool export market for Britain during peacetime, while also raises its machine tool stock to a much higher level than just one third of German level. And I think Britain would not bother to import so much American machine tool like OTL with these outputs.

Basically I am turning Britain into an industrial beast
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Shipbuilding in the 1930s was is the throes of a severe depression,
at the end of ww1 the American Goverment had constructed the worlds largest shipyard whicb constructed ships from prefabricated parts,

Despite the loss of thousands of merchant ships in ww1 the hog island shipyard only produced 122 ships. And was inactive by 1922

It could not compete with the obsolete outdated craft based shipyards on the Clyde,

Interestingly the same thing happened to the Kaiser yards in America, they shut down after WW2.
Well, finally you have admitted that British shipyards were outdated. You know, they even lacked pneumatic and electric tooling, as well as electric welding tools. Maybe even big yards like Vickers or A-W or Beardmore or H&W.
 

hipper

Banned
First, 800000 was German output and 379000 was British output (here is the total output during the whole 1940-1944 period), German stock was usually nearly 1.5 million during the war (and British stock was just a third of that).

This paper has all info about machine tool industry
https://www.google.com.vn/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjBrc3-8pTRAhWGlJQKHWbxBEU4ChAWCEEwCw&url=http://www.ifn.se/storage/cms/c8e080f7a21944c19b088b1dde724d56/d38fed0ac7914b028b082c3b503291b8/pdf/C0A677E5F16EC653FFB6E0FC1E051A498EC2DC59/WP096.pdf?MediaArchive_ForceDownload=true&PropertyName=File1&ValueIndex=0&usg=AFQjCNGuEdaqqjY6jzft0nKmXsw7D0057A&sig2=Uf9ni83LM2T8kmjBqo4n5A&bvm=bv.142059868,d.dGo
You can see that German machinery industry far outperformed Britain at least from 1913. The 46% export market share in 1913 have proved clear German superiority in machine tool.

OTL: British output:
1935: <20k
1939: 37k
1940: 62k
1941: 81k
1942: 96k
1943: 76k
1944: 59k

Now you can imagine that: British machine tool production being much higher than OTL for many years before 1939.
1935: 45k
1939: 65k
1940: 85k
1941: 110k
1942: 130k
1943: 100k
1944: 90k

(No substantial increase in labour force employed compared to OTL. You can do this by transforming 100 cottage workshops in to a Krupp Essen. Same thing with steel industry: consolidation of small producers into giant ones)

These increases in machine tool output would lead to a much bigger share of global machine tool export market for Britain during peacetime, while also raises its machine tool stock to a much higher level than just one third of German level. And I think Britain would not bother to import so much American machine tool like OTL with these outputs.

Basically I am turning Britain into an industrial beast

Two points ,

1) what unsatsified demand do you think existed in 1935 for machine tools. Remember there is no practical way to export to the US.

2) in your scenario Britain makes 85 k machine tools in 1940' in OTL the U.K. Made 62 k machine tools and imported 33k
So British manifactures of war material is less in your scenario.

All you are saying is that the uk should have reamed earlier than it did.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Two points ,

1) what unsatsified demand do you think existed in 1935 for machine tools. Remember ther is no practical way to export to the US.

2) in your scenario Britain makes 85 k machine tools in 1940' in OTL the U.K. Made 62 k machine tools and imported 33k
So British manifactures of war material is less in your scenario.

All you are saying is that the uk should have reamed earlier than it did.
You can export to Europe and to lesser extent, Empire, Japan and even Soviet. Why not trying to capture market share from Germany? Besides, government can raise domestic demand by encouraging or forcing industries to modernize and retool, not just armament industries but also civilian industries that lagged far behind Germany like steel, electrical, electronic, chemical industries, as well as other outdated industries like textile, clothing and footwear.

And the output would increase naturally without really employ more labour when you centralize your production. Instead of letting the machine tool industry being dominated by "sheds" like OTL (this is a general traiy of British industry), you consolidate them into a giant complex to take advantage of economies of scale.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
What's the data say from 1914- 1946?
According to that paper, in 1924, when German share fell substantially, it still doubled that of Britain (30 vs 14). In 1937, German export was nearly 7 times higher (48 vs 7).

All these figures show that Germany outperformed Britain in machine tool, and the distance was not even close.
 
Top