Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Thomas1195

Banned
Not that it matters since British tools were mainly generalized ones for skilled labor and for their domestic market, while Germany made specced ones to account for unskilled labor and could export.
Unfortunately, the German (and American) path would be the approach for the future
 

Thomas1195

Banned
the UK is at present the fifth largest economy in the world by GDP its not a sign of failure by any measure what criteria are you using
Current UK economy seems to be nice if looking at the most general figures, but if looking to fundamental ones, combined with Brexit, it is basically in a process of going down into the toilet.
 
Current UK economy seems to be nice if looking at the most general figures, but if looking to fundamental ones, combined with Brexit, it is basically in a process of going down into the toilet.

Brexit is a brand new ingredient whose ramifications have yet to be fully explored and besides properly belongs in chat.

However given that 106 years have passed since the opening date of your OP and Britain with twenty larger countries by population still has a top 5 rank in regards GDP in nominal measure and a top 10 rank as regards GDP in a purchasing power parity measure that rather suggests that during the period 1910-2010 the fundamentals were at least somewhat sound.

A hundred years is a goodly period to test fundamentals.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Brexit is a brand new ingredient whose ramifications have yet to be fully explored and besides properly belongs in chat.

However given that 106 years have passed since the opening date of your OP and Britain with twenty larger countries by population still has a top 5 rank in regards GDP in nominal measure and a top 10 rank as regards GDP in a purchasing power parity measure that rather suggests that during the period 1910-2010 the fundamentals were at least somewhat sound.

A hundred years is a goodly period to test fundamentals.
Well, this would be the last time I move to postwar period in this thread, but Britain was basically an industrial pariah in 1960s-1970s. Thatcher "saved" the economy at the cost of large-scale deindustrialization. And since the GFC, it has descended to a new phase of decline: growth and employment was driven by low-tech, low-skilled jobs. I have just opened a thread about current UK economy.

Btw, UK nominal GDP has just been surpassed by France and India due to falling pound.
 

hipper

Banned
Unfortunately, the German (and American) path would be the approach for the future

Actually that an interesting point, using the american mass production system you set up a number of specific tools to make one item. the resulting production line then makes that item very well - the drawback is the time it takes to set up production lines.

Churchill as usual had the best quote about mass production, nothing the first year, a trickle the second and all you want in the third, You can produce very large numbers of items but only if you make the minimum number of changes. To cope with updates in aircraft the United states kept building the aircraft to the original specification gaining production efficiency then sent the finished aircraft to a second factory to be altered to the up to date specification.

in contrast the UK were able to continually alter in production models for aircraft by altering the production line this cost them efficiency in aircraft production but they were able to get improvements into the front line at the maximum speed. the introduction of the MkV and MkiX spitfires being the obvious examples -basically the original spitfire air frame with the minimum of changes required to accept different engines.

I would have said the Americans were more "wasteful" in the the use of machine tools in this process however I see that Germany and the United States had similar number of machine tools in use during WW2 however they (the Americans) seemed to manage to produce more of everything ...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Actually that an interesting point, using the american mass production system you set up a number of specific tools to make one item. the resulting production line then makes that item very well - the drawback is the time it takes to set up production lines.

Churchill as usual had the best quote about mass production, nothing the first year, a trickle the second and all you want in the third, You can produce very large numbers of items but only if you make the minimum number of changes. To cope with updates in aircraft the United states kept building the aircraft to the original specification gaining production efficiency then sent the finished aircraft to a second factory to be altered to the up to date specification.

in contrast the UK were able to continually alter in production models for aircraft by altering the production line this cost them efficiency in aircraft production but they were able to get improvements into the front line at the maximum speed. the introduction of the MkV and MkiX spitfires being the obvious examples -basically the original spitfire air frame with the minimum of changes required to accept different engines.

I would have said the Americans were more "wasteful" in the the use of machine tools in this process however I see that Germany and the United States had similar number of machine tools in use during WW2 however they (the Americans) seemed to manage to produce more of everything ...

Well, but can you explain this?
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=tbCzUqFvfssC&pg=PA78&dq=british+exports+and+imports+of+machine+tool+in+1914&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU64WGrJbRAhXFJpQKHdVrCqEQ6AEIMjAA#v=onepage&q=british exports and imports of machine tool in 1914&f=false
Look at page 79. If British machine tools were truly superior, British producers would haven't been kicked out of French market by Germany firms like that. British market share dropped from 50% to just around 10%. This would be impossible if British producers produced better products. You know, France was not a place to sell junks like some colonies.

Btw, it was still the fact Britain relied heavily on American specialized modern machine tool for sophistcated tasks that must be undertaken to produce latest war machines in both wars, especially the second. Germany, OTOH, could produce all of their own machinery.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Better and cheaper are two different things, just because you can doesn't mean you always should. Germany could just have lower costs due to lower wages?
You can sell lower quality products to places like Chile, Brazil, India or China, but not the likes of France.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
You can sell lower quality products to anybody if they are sufficiently cheaper for the customer to think its a good deal.....
The fact that by 1900 "made in Germany" had become a signal of superb quality was contrary to what you have said.

Btw, it was still harder to sell junks to places like France.
 
Yeah, economics doesn't seem to be OP's forte... along with keeping within his scope when the heat gets too high. Seriously, the notion that my clothes that tend to fuzz up and rip open are inherently better because they're sold here in the US is naff. The cheaper sweatshops in Bangladesh that make my clothes for instance last longer than the "better" paid and more expensive Chinese ones.

And more assertions that have no teeth from a man whose idea of honesty is that it is secondary to the role of being right.
 
Last edited:

hipper

Banned
Well, but can you explain this?

Btw, it was still the fact Britain relied heavily on American specialized modern machine tool for sophistcated tasks that must be undertaken to produce latest war machines in both wars, especially the second. Germany, OTOH, could produce all of their own machinery.

As has been pointed out before German machines were shameless and cheaper copies of American machine tools cheaply produced in Germany due to low wage costs. That's why they were popular in France.

Which sophisticated tasks were American machine tools used for in ww2?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
As has been pointed out before German machines were shameless and cheaper copies of American machine tools cheaply produced in Germany due to low wage costs. That's why they were popular in France.

Which sophisticated tasks were American machine tools used for in ww2?
In ww1, it was the production of high explosive shells, which was more difficult than producing shrapnels and Britain initially lacked the expertise and the necessary tools to make HE shells, as well as shell casesm
 
Britain initially lacked the expertise and the necessary tools to make HE shells

Sorry, I didn't realise we could just make things up on this thread.

I think you'll find, if you check, that the production of purple hippopotami increased by over 79% in the UK between the years 1900 and 1927 and that by 1924 the UK was the largest supplier of purple hippopotami to mainland Europe, overtaking the previously unassailable position previously held by the Krupp Nilpferdwerk since the early 19th Century.
 

hipper

Banned
In ww1, it was the production of high explosive shells, which was more difficult than producing shrapnels and Britain initially lacked the expertise and the necessary tools to make HE shells, as well as shell casesm

I asked you about ww2 however you are wrong about HE shells in ww1

to deal with the Shell Crisis, the Government turned to railway companies to manufacture materials of war. Railway companies were well placed to manufacture munitions and other war materials, with their large locomotive and carriage works and skilled labourers, and by the end of 1915 the railway companies were producing between 1,000 and 5,000 6-inch. H.E. Shells per week.[11]

https://archive.org/stream/cu31924092566128#page/n7/mode/2up

don't you think it's a bit silly to claim that the country with the largest navy in the world can't make high explosive shells?
 
Sorry, I didn't realise we could just make things up on this thread.

I think you'll find, if you check, that the production of purple hippopotami increased by over 79% in the UK between the years 1900 and 1927 and that by 1924 the UK was the largest supplier of purple hippopotami to mainland Europe, overtaking the previously unassailable position previously held by the Krupp Nilpferdwerk since the early 19th Century.
:):biggrin::rolleyes:x'D:extremelyhappy:XD:evilsmile:
Or you could have just pointed out that in 1914 it was the 13 and 18 Pounder Field guns of the RHA and RA that lacked an HE Shell.
The Brigade of 4.5 Inch Howitzers and Battery of Heavy 60 Pounders attached to every Infantry Division of the BEF always did have High-Explosive Shells?

Pointing out such a flaw in doctrine might have been a valid point which we could all discuss and make some valid criticism of, however Thomas1195 did not make this point, instead preferring to be wildly inaccurate.:frown::confused:o_O
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Nope, by 1900 German products was still competing on price - not quality
Well, things like dye, Jena optics or electrical goods proved that you're wrong

Or you could have just pointed out that in 1914 it was the 13 and 18 Pounder Field guns of the RHA and RA that lacked an HE Shell.
The Brigade of 4.5 Inch Howitzers and Battery of Heavy 60 Pounders attached to every Infantry Division of the BEF always did have High-Explosive Shells?

to deal with the Shell Crisis, the Government turned to railway companies to manufacture materials of war. Railway companies were well placed to manufacture munitions and other war materials, with their large locomotive and carriage works and skilled labourers, and by the end of 1915 the railway companies were producing between 1,000 and 5,000 6-inch. H.E. Shells per week.[11]
You can read page 55-56 of Alfred Herbert and the British machine tool industry book
 
Top