Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

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 ...
You can read Corelli Barnett. He asserted that poor labour productivity, obsolete and incapable industrial base made Britain heavily reliant on Lend-Lease. Another factor was British education.
 
The reason Calbear has yet to lock this thread is the fact he keeps collapsing into a fit of hysteric laughter every time he reads more of it.

Note, I am not asking for it to be closed, I'm enjoying the discussion as much as anybody.
 
Oh, as soon as I saw what OP was doing I instantly knew that he cared more about winning than honesty and learning. I mean the winners for me being just plopping google books out without giving you a passage to go by that when you read the sections available either weaken or nullify his points. At least Tigers 67th when he was a member would do you that kindness as he quote mined to wank the Confeds.

And Germans still never reached the productivity of their shack using peers bro. Plus in World War 2: Electric Boogaloo, the "superior" german industry was cooking its guts out and only kept afloat by looting. On top of dat, they produced shoddier stuff thanks to that lack of trading power to keep their keisters going in war. Namely their vaunted steel turning to crap because they were missing the alloys to make it well.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
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.
You fail to grasp my points:
Assume that:
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

Meanwhile, also assume that steel output rises to 23 million tons by 1938 instead of only 14 million tons.

The more important things is that in my case, these output increases would be driven by a corresponding surge in productivity, not due to putting more labour. This means they would greater output without eating up resources from other industries. Oh wait, unemployment rate was still very high during 1930s.

Well, what would these increases be used for/ what could trigger this?

First, having Lloyd George winning 1929 election, these increases would serve his public programmes and interventionist policies.

Next would be no LNT, which would require Labour to lose 1929 election. Renewed naval building would lead to the urgent needs to rationalize and modernize shipyards, a big boost for steel and machine tool makers, which were still in a far better shape than in OTL 1935. Dockyard enlargement for bigger ships in the future. Welding actively encouraged to save weight for BBs.

How can we get the money? Gradually pulling foreign investments back, some measures of capital controls, land value tax, a big hike in McKenna duties (also including more types of luxury goods), Imperial Preference with a 20% tariff, savings from things like Unemployment Funds (as more people being put to work)...
 
You fail to grasp my points:
Assume that:
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

Meanwhile, also assume that steel output rises to 23 million tons by 1938 instead of only 14 million tons.

The more important things is that in my case, these output increases would be driven by a corresponding surge in productivity, not due to putting more labour. This means they would greater output without eating up resources from other industries. Oh wait, unemployment rate was still very high during 1930s.

Well, what would these increases be used for/ what could trigger this?

First, having Lloyd George winning 1929 election, these increases would serve his public programmes and interventionist policies.

Next would be no LNT, which would require Labour to lose 1929 election. Renewed naval building would lead to the urgent needs to rationalize and modernize shipyards, a big boost for steel and machine tool makers, which were still in a far better shape than in OTL 1935. Dockyard enlargement for bigger ships in the future. Welding actively encouraged to save weight for BBs.

How can we get the money? Gradually pulling foreign investments back, some measures of capital controls, land value tax, a big hike in McKenna duties (also including more types of luxury goods), Imperial Preference with a 20% tariff, savings from things like Unemployment Funds (as more people being put to work)...

No he does, he simply refutes them. A lot of single use machine tools making the wrong things would actually be more useless to the British than their absence as they would have absorbed capital that would have remained in reserve for emergencies or been allocated to more productive enterprises.

Opportunity cost. This is something that you never consider in your proposals. When a resource is finite such as time or money or skilled workers spending it one thing prevents you spending it on any others and so the trick is to spend it on the things that garner the best results and only switch to things that offer better results still.

Say the British spend lots of money on versatile machine tools rather than importing cheaper single use US made ones. This clearly sounds like a win win to you but is it? The manufacturer intending to use those machines tools has fewer of them or less of something else as they have spent more of their finite stock of cash and credit upon these more expensive tools. Further but production is delayed as they need to train up the workers to use them...workers who can now move more easily to other companies so probably have to be paid more or worked less to induce them to remain once trained up. So extra cost plus extra cost plus delay to finally achieve the same output. The only winner may be the British machine tool producer but then again they may lose out as the goods they need or desire from other British firms now cost more. Further the Treasury loses as higher costs mean lower corporation taxes.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
No he does, he simply refutes them. A lot of single use machine tools making the wrong things would actually be more useless to the British than their absence as they would have absorbed capital that would have remained in reserve for emergencies or been allocated to more productive enterprises.

Opportunity cost. This is something that you never consider in your proposals. When a resource is finite such as time or money or skilled workers spending it one thing prevents you spending it on any others and so the trick is to spend it on the things that garner the best results and only switch to things that offer better results still.

Say the British spend lots of money on versatile machine tools rather than importing cheaper single use US made ones. This clearly sounds like a win win to you but is it? The manufacturer intending to use those machines tools has fewer of them or less of something else as they have spent more of their finite stock of cash and credit upon these more expensive tools. Further but production is delayed as they need to train up the workers to use them...workers who can now move more easily to other companies so probably have to be paid more or worked less to induce them to remain once trained up. So extra cost plus extra cost plus delay to finally achieve the same output. The only winner may be the British machine tool producer but then again they may lose out as the goods they need or desire from other British firms now cost more. Further the Treasury loses as higher costs mean lower corporation taxes.
Well, British machine tool industry, except for Herbert, was dominated by small firms. They can substantially raise output by concentrating these smaller producers into larger ones, or centralized production. Meanwhile, they certainly can and should move to American practices of standardization, as well as capital intensive, mechanized mass production of specialist machine tools. These changes mean more machines produced with more or less the similar amount of labour.

At the same time, similar measures would take place in steel industry. I would rather having 1 or 2 modern giant steel mills rather than a bunch of terribly inefficient small cottage mills. Modern machine tool and equipment like electric arc furnaces would be installed.

Machine tool and steel must be developed in parallel. They are eggs and chickens. Next, large-scale adoption of welding or electric arc furnaces would require large-scale, centralized electricity supply system, which the "We can conquer unemployment" plan wanted to tackle.

Edgerton studied the ww2 aircraft industry in UK and US and pointed out that a key determinant of superior American output was that the size of American plants was twice bigger. Therefore I argue that Britain should have had 1-3 giant steel mills in say, Sheffield rather than a bunch of sheds.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
It's not like British government had never done what I said. They intervened quite forcefully in chemical industry after ww1. Result: the formation of ICI helped restablish British chemical industry as a major force in global market, and also served for strategic purposes. They should have had even more radical policies for shipbuilding, marine engineering, machine tools and steel industries, which were obsolete and very uncompetitive during 1920s-1930s
 
yo know it s kinda funny that a skilled tradesman can produce a quality piece of anything with crappy tools while an unskilled person can turn out only junk with the best equipment available.
get over it bud.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
yo know it s kinda funny that a skilled tradesman can produce a quality piece of anything with crappy tools while an unskilled person can turn out only junk with the best equipment available.
get over it bud.
Well, a Jena glass worker with modern equipment turned out optics (the reputation of Jena optics before 1914 was some kind of legendary) with far better accuracy than a cottage craftman in Britain.

Well, and customers from France, Sweden or the US would prefer Krupp steel products rather than those made by Sheffield sheds.
 
Well, a Jena glass worker with modern equipment turned out optics (the reputation of Jena optics before 1914 was some kind of legendary) with far better accuracy than a cottage craftman in Britain.

Well, and customers from France, Sweden or the US would prefer Krupp steel products rather than those made by Sheffield sheds.
really....you r kinda thick
 
Yeah, they won two wars against dudes who wore awesome uniforms.

Seriously, when he tried to pull stuff from outside of the scope of the OP, he proved beyond the shadow of doubt that he is intellectually dishonest and that like the man behind the Frisian Folly, he cares more about winning for his pet cause than being objective.


Khaki > Feldgrau


In all seriousness,can anyone summarize the points made from both sides?OP seems to be just repeating things ad nauseam.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, actually Keynes and Lloyd George proposed major capital spending both on public works to reduce unemployment, improve Britain's infrastructures and industrial capacity (e.g. motorway expansion, electrical and telephone developments) in early and late 1920s. Also, Keynes and McKenna also opposed the return to prewar Gold. However, the Liberals, whom Keynes had the biggest influence over, had been torpedoed by the Great War. Keynes argued that Britain's savings, instead of being invested abroad, should have been invested domestically.

Well, as a result, British heavy industries in the North fell into decay during 1920s-early 1930s.
 
The reason Calbear has yet to lock this thread is the fact he keeps collapsing into a fit of hysteric laughter every time he reads more of it.

Note, I am not asking for it to be closed, I'm enjoying the discussion as much as anybody.


its does have more than a whiff of 'machine tools are the new coal' - if people get what i mean
 
its does have more than a whiff of 'machine tools are the new coal' - if people get what i mean
Even the thread's name is dishonest considering that this isn't really a discussion; it's an attempt to push a pet cause and to wank a power that for all of its advantages still collapsed against the inferior shack building, coal burning savages. Twice.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Even the thread's name is dishonest considering that this isn't really a discussion; it's an attempt to push a pet cause and to wank a power that for all of its advantages still collapsed against the inferior shack building, coal burning savages. Twice.
Bailed out by the American, at least once.

And someone tried to avoid counter-arguing my statements on chemical, steel, electrical and electronic industries because they could not denied German superiority in these things.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
If I were a British PM, I would bulldoze all the Sheffield steel sheds and rebuild a Krupp-size complex equipped with electric arc furnaces as replacement.
 
So? A lot of countries have something they do better in industrywise or worse than their peers, for example Germany was ass at farming to the point it led to that mass starvation in WWI, and their shipbuilding was hilariously poor to the point the stern of the ship would fall off. By this logic, I should say they should build Harland and Wolff, or Vickers-Armstrong yards in Kiel and Wilhelmshaven. Hey, maybe I can artificially pretend they sucked even more since they lacked that crucial textile industry advantage that the superior British textiles(tm) had to make uniforms and stuff as well.

By this self-inflicted poor logic that I am using just to win because honesty isn't as important, they were worse in every way than the island savages who dwelled in coal burning huts; this is what you sound like to me.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
So? A lot of countries have something they do better in industrywise or worse than their peers, for example Germany was ass at farming to the point it led to that mass starvation in WWI, and their shipbuilding was hilariously poor to the point the stern of the ship would fall off. By this logic, I should say they should build Harland and Wolff, or Vickers-Armstrong yards in Kiel and Wilhelmshaven. Hey, maybe I can artificially pretend they sucked even more since they lacked that crucial textile industry advantage that the superior British textiles(tm) had to make uniforms and stuff as well.

By this self-inflicted poor logic that I am using just to win because honesty isn't as important, they were worse in every way than the island savages who dwelled in coal burning huts; this is what you sound like to me.
Well, German heavy industries were superior, as a result, their products drove British goods out of non-Empire markets by 1913.
 
If I were a British PM, I would bulldoze all the Sheffield steel sheds and rebuild a Krupp-size complex equipped with electric arc furnaces as replacement.
so basically you would take something that works just fine,destroy it and replace it with something else because the original wasn t state of the art.your shareholders want to have a word with you,that is if the bean counters leave anything for them to talk to.
 
Top