Discussion: Comparing British and German industries 1900-1940

Technology improves via the ratchet-effect meaning that economies only change when forced by wars or technological advances in other countries or other corporations. Then the losing country or corporation leap-frogs ahead with the next generation of technology. ... and the cycle repeats itself.

Sometimes losing a war can be an advantage - during the next war.

For example, after Germany lost WW1, the Versailles Treaty forced them to scrap most of their small arms and many millions of marks worth of tooling.
When they started re-arming for WW2, German factories had the luxury of choosing between WW1 pattern weapons or a new generation.
Since 95 percent of the old tooling was destroyed, Germany opted for new generations of small arms: P38 pistol, MP38/40 SMG and MG34 GPMG with automated tooling that increased precision while reducing manufacturing costs. Most notable were the complex stamped sheet-metal pieces used in MP40, MG42 and FG42 Mark 2 that required expensive hydraulic presses, but vastly reduced parts-count, fasteners and hand-fitting.

Meanwhile, Britain manufactured millions of WW1-pattern Lee-Enfield rifles and Vickers MGs with only tiny updates.
On the subject of SMGs, Britain rushed the heavy, expensive Lanchester SMG into production, but the Lanchester was merely a copy of the 1918 German Bergman SMG. Then Britain imported thousands of precisely-machined (Blish device) Thompson SMGs from the USA. In desperation, Britain introduced the crude STEN Gun, but STEN production was far from, high-tech because it was mostly hand-cut from standard sizes of steel tubing and standard gauges of sheet steel spot-welded together.
Even the American's second generation of SMGs (M3 Grease Gun) was sheet steel stamped on the hydraulic presses found in every American automobile factory.
 
Wasn't the biggest failing of British industry compared to German industry that the latter's business practices were more modern than the former's?
 
Wasn't the biggest failing of British industry compared to German industry that the latter's business practices were more modern than the former's?

I haven't read that, but I've read American management practice was better than the British, indeed it was the best in the world in the early 20th century.
 
Yes, British management practices and labour practices were a long way from the recently-modernized German practices.
For examples we can look to British aircraft manufacturing practices.
While Hawker/Sopwith clung to the old model of sticks and wires covered with fabric until late in the war. Hawker Hurricanes were mostly high-tech, aluminum-alloy "sticks" bolted and riveted together. Hurricane wing ribs were made of dozens of small pieces of aluminum riveted together.

Supermarine was not much better because Spitifre wing ribs were still dozens of small pieces of aluminum riveted together. When Supermarine tried hydro-forming large, compound curved leading edges, they stumbled with quality-control problems that delayed early Spitfire production by many months.

OTOH when Germany started re-arming - during the 1930s - they tooled up for stressed-skin, sheet-metal construction. Yes, Heinkel did build a few airplanes with compound-curved leading edges, but simpler designs dominated German factories. For example, Messerschmitt 109 wing ribs were hydro-formed from single sheets of metal. Sections may have been almost as thin as the "aluminum sticks" in British airplanes, but they contained 1/10th the parts-count and 1/10th the hand-labour of British wing ribs.

IOW while Me109 had a low parts-count, Spitfire had a high parts-count, but their performance over-lapped so much that neither enjoyed a large advantage in combat.
 
Technology improves via the ratchet-effect meaning that economies only change when forced by wars or technological advances in other countries or other corporations. Then the losing country or corporation leap-frogs ahead with the next generation of technology. ... and the cycle repeats itself.

Sometimes losing a war can be an advantage - during the next war.

For example, after Germany lost WW1, the Versailles Treaty forced them to scrap most of their small arms and many millions of marks worth of tooling.
When they started re-arming for WW2, German factories had the luxury of choosing between WW1 pattern weapons or a new generation.
Since 95 percent of the old tooling was destroyed, Germany opted for new generations of small arms: P38 pistol, MP38/40 SMG and MG34 GPMG with automated tooling that increased precision while reducing manufacturing costs. Most notable were the complex stamped sheet-metal pieces used in MP40, MG42 and FG42 Mark 2 that required expensive hydraulic presses, but vastly reduced parts-count, fasteners and hand-fitting.

Meanwhile, Britain manufactured millions of WW1-pattern Lee-Enfield rifles and Vickers MGs with only tiny updates.
On the subject of SMGs, Britain rushed the heavy, expensive Lanchester SMG into production, but the Lanchester was merely a copy of the 1918 German Bergman SMG. Then Britain imported thousands of precisely-machined (Blish device) Thompson SMGs from the USA. In desperation, Britain introduced the crude STEN Gun, but STEN production was far from, high-tech because it was mostly hand-cut from standard sizes of steel tubing and standard gauges of sheet steel spot-welded together.
Even the American's second generation of SMGs (M3 Grease Gun) was sheet steel stamped on the hydraulic presses found in every American automobile factory.


And yet most german troops carried the KAR98. They never had enough radios for their artillery, or ammunition. had inferior pieces in insufficient numbers, Failed to provide light utility vehicles in any numbers. and whateer they do produce tends to be in lower numbers and moved around on a horse and cart. Produce only 14k training aircraft vs 46k by the UK. Think about what that means for the effectiveness of the air force.
 
And yet most german troops carried the KAR98. They never had enough radios for their artillery, or ammunition. had inferior pieces in insufficient numbers, Failed to provide light utility vehicles in any numbers. and whateer they do produce tends to be in lower numbers and moved around on a horse and cart. Produce only 14k training aircraft vs 46k by the UK. Think about what that means for the effectiveness of the air force.

I'd think those are problems of demand rather than supply, the government and armed forces asked for the wrong things rather than the industry inability to supply them. Perhaps the government could have limited their artillery production to the number of radios and used that extra steel to build utility vehicles.
 
Production of plain-vanilla artillery, like the 10.5 cm howitzer, was insufficient, Heer needs more of those, not less. What needs to be cut down is production of anti-aircraft artillery. Reduction of numbers of different artillery ammo types need to happen ASAP.
 
Production of plain-vanilla artillery, like the 10.5 cm howitzer, was insufficient, Heer needs more of those, not less. What needs to be cut down is production of anti-aircraft artillery. Reduction of numbers of different artillery ammo types need to happen ASAP.

I'd wonder that when fighting the other three great industrial powers if any number of 105mm howitzers would be enough.

Yes, a rationalisation of AAA would be useful, but Germany had to be defended from heavy air attack and there are a lot more people capable of serving a AAA gun than can fly and service aircraft.

However in both cases the solution to the problem could be seen as political/diplomatic rather than a failing of industry, Hitler could conceivably not have declared war on the US until later and gave Germany a smaller task until then.
 
Millions of WW2 German soldiers still carried Mauser 98 rifles, but they depended increasingly on light machine guns, SMGs and mortars. In 1941, 1942 and 1943 German industry introduced new models of semi-auto rifles to improve firepower of individual riflemen.

As for training plane production: Germany was limited by fuel supplies. By 1944, they suffered shortages of pilots as old aces died in battle, but new pilots were flung into battle with only a few hundred hours flying time.
With few pilots and airplanes to maintain, Luftwaffe ground crews were remustered in Luftwaffe field divisions.

Meanwhile, the BCATP and USAAF had produced a surplus of airplanes and air crew. By late war, USAAF bomber crews were learning their trades in B-25 Mitchel bombers versus the light twin trainers flown by most other air forces.
When the BCATP produced surpluses of air crews, the RCAF sent hundreds of air crew home. This did not sit well with the Canadian Army which never recovered from heavy infantry casualties suffered during the second half of 1944.

So both German and Canadian governments mis-directed man-power and aircraft production. The difference was that Canada had plenty of allies along with surpluses of grain, steel, etc. While Germany was exhausted.
 
I'd wonder that when fighting the other three great industrial powers if any number of 105mm howitzers would be enough.

Yes, a rationalisation of AAA would be useful, but Germany had to be defended from heavy air attack and there are a lot more people capable of serving a AAA gun than can fly and service aircraft.

However in both cases the solution to the problem could be seen as political/diplomatic rather than a failing of industry, Hitler could conceivably not have declared war on the US until later and gave Germany a smaller task until then.

Indeed, making a war against the three major powers was a very dumb thing to do for Nazi Germany.

The (heavy) Flak defenses were a waste, it was Luftwaffe that killed/blunted the opposition within weeks/days - Poland, Norway, Low Countries, France, Balkans, Soviet Union, N. Africa. Flak forces either did not participate in this, or played a second fiddle. Basically - Luftwaffe did Flak's role. When RAF and other bombers were trying to hit targets in Germany, it were Bf 109s and 110s, and later Fw 190s that brutaly removed them, not Flak.
Once the Luftwaffe's fighter arm was severed, and British learnt the night bombing trade, 10000 (ten thousand) of heavy Flak deployed between Atlantic and Berlin in 1944 were incapable to make USAF and RAF BC suffer casualties above several % of sorties dispatched.

The Flak also needs capable, healthy and reasonably young men if results are expected. Relocating of seasoned men after the Stalingrad disaster, and posting less capable ones instead was one of factors that drew number of heavy Flak shells to kill an aircraft from 4000 to 16000 (16 thousand). That is 160 tons (give or take) of war material expended to kill an Allied aircraft - the German defense was more expensive than Allied bombing campaign, both in material and casualties.

I'll also point to the British defenses in 1939 and on, where it was fighters, not AAA that was instrumental in stopping the Luftwaffe. British made the right decision (pump out the fighters, not AAA), the Germans did not.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
And yet most german troops carried the KAR98. They never had enough radios for their artillery, or ammunition. had inferior pieces in insufficient numbers, Failed to provide light utility vehicles in any numbers. and whateer they do produce tends to be in lower numbers and moved around on a horse and cart. Produce only 14k training aircraft vs 46k by the UK. Think about what that means for the effectiveness of the air force.
I'd think those are problems of demand rather than supply, the government and armed forces asked for the wrong things rather than the industry inability to supply them. Perhaps the government could have limited their artillery production to the number of radios and used that extra steel to build utility vehicles.
The discussion here is about industrial techniques and capability, not about who had better weapons.
A classic example could be Solvay process vs Leblanc process, which could be used to bash British industry.

During 1970s-1980s, Soviet had plenty of excellent weapons. But their industrial practices and technology was a decade behind US, Japan and Western Europe.

Similar case for Britain and Germany 1900-1940, but what I mentioned below was more about 1910-1914.

British factories were mostly small cottage workshops, many equipped with outdated steam-powered machinery from 19th century, and stuck with craft based methods. They produced lots of outdated goods that would be eventually redundant, especially before 1914, like steam engines, gas lamp or telegraph (old industries). Imagine that everyone move to computer but you still use typewriter and produce typewriter.

German factories, on the other hand, were large, sophisticated, modern and well equipped. Look at Krupp Essen, a gold standard for European factories at that time, you could never find a British equivalent. They excelled in new products like diesel engines, electric trains, light bulbs, telephones, optics and other precision instruments, electrical machinery, organic chemical, advanced drugs, advanced machine tool. Lots of their intellectual assets were stolen after ww1, following Versailles.

You could see that British small arms during 1900-1918 were often produced with craft based methods in small workshops, while German weapons were mainly manufactured on modern production lines, in places like Krupp Essen.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
Similar case for Britain and Germany 1900-1940, but what I mentioned below was more about 1910-1914.

British factories were mostly small cottage workshops, many equipped with outdated steam-powered machinery from 19th century, and stuck with craft based methods. They produced lots of outdated goods that would be eventually redundant, especially before 1914, like steam engines, gas lamp or telegraph (old industries). Imagine that everyone move to computer but you still use typewriter and produce typewriter.

You are painting the British as a nation of luddites, which while amusing, is probably not accurate. Britain (and perhaps Belgium) was the first to go through an industrial revolution, so while they enjoyed 'first mover' advantages, over time their existing machinery was not always as competitive as more modern machinery and production methods were introduced.

It should be noted around 1900 Britain ran a relatively open economy, while Germany and the US protected their industries with heavy tariffs - if the Germans were as superior (and the British were as pitiful) as you suggest, surely the Germans could have competed on an level playing field? Conversely, if Britain had felt threatened by the competition, then it could have put trade barriers in place - like everyone else had.

I understand a significant amount of German steel found its way onto British dreadnaughts - not due to its superior qualities, but because of German export subsidies. The German shipbuilders paid a higher price for the same German steel. Since you're fond of hyperbole, from a technological perspective the dreadnaught was the 1900 military equivalent of a stealth bomber and the British could build those faster, cheaper and arguably better than the German equivalent....

You could see that British small arms during 1900-1918 were often produced with craft based methods in small workshops, while German weapons were mainly manufactured on modern production lines, in places like Krupp Essen.

Not really. The Luger and the MG34 are examples of iconic small arms renowned for craft based production and those were in mainstream use in WW2. To this day the Germans retain a reputation of quality craftsmanship, not mass production, economies of scale...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
You dismiss textiles and food as if they dont count. British Tommies were well fed, well clothed were warm and had dry feet (most of the time). No one died of starvation military or civil. How many Germans had good boots and uniforms, during Operation Michael in 1918 German soldiers spent plenty of time taking the boots and coats off Tommies and raiding supply dumps for food and booze that had been captured instead of advancing.

Chemical, Yes Germany had a lead in 1914 but Britain had a massive lead 4 years later.

Railways. British railway companies and rolling stock manufacturers were able to replace all the French and Belgian rolling stock lost in 1914 within a year.

Chemical: well, because they was able to steal German patents following Versailles, especially advanced drugs like aspirin (British pharma firms before ww1 only produced simple things like syrup). But Germany quickly reestablished its lead during the interwar, with things like tabun and sarin. You must know that German firms like BASF, Bayer or later IG Farben spend far more on R&D than ICI.

I agree that Britain led in light, consumer good industries.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
You are painting the British as a nation of luddites, which while amusing, is probably not accurate. Britain (and perhaps Belgium) was the first to go through an industrial revolution, so while they enjoyed 'first mover' advantages, over time their existing machinery was not always as competitive as more modern machinery and production methods were introduced.

An interesting example is Solvay vs Leblanc.

Like electricity vs steam power, oh yeah.

Also advanced machine tool and assembly lines

Electric power, electrical equipment, advanced machine tool formed the basis of modern 20th century industry. And British lagged far behind Germany in all of them, especially electricity and electrical equipment.
 

BooNZ

Banned
An interesting example is Solvay vs Leblanc.

Like electricity vs steam power, oh yeah.

Also advanced machine tool and assembly lines

Electric power, electrical equipment, advanced machine tool formed the basis of modern 20th century industry. And British lagged far behind Germany in all of them, especially electricity and electrical equipment.

German late industrialization, strong population growth and scientific endeavor provided them with many advantages. However, for whatever reason (perhaps arrogance) the Germans had found themselves with few friends and would have been vulnerable if the British Empire had decided to put trade barriers in place.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
German late industrialization, strong population growth and scientific endeavor provided them with many advantages. However, for whatever reason (perhaps arrogance) the Germans had found themselves with few friends and would have been vulnerable if the British Empire had decided to put trade barriers in place.
True, actually Bismarck did not intend to engage in colonial race. If so, then they would not have created so many enemies, that was diplomacy and politics.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Electrical. Britain had electrically operated factories before anyone else but coal and coal gas was cheap and because of the wide spread of coalfields (I doubt any factory was much more than 50 or 60 miles from a coalfield) and dense rail network easily available why would you use anything else until a National Grid was in place. Paris was so advanced in its use of home grown French electrical equipment it was known as Cité d'Electricité.

Using electric power increase the efficiency and prodcutivity compared to coal and gas, while also reducing machinery size.

Besides, what you said was the reason why that British manufacturing industry of electrical and electronic devices was retarded and clearly lagged behind German firms at that time.

Before 1914 and even after, Britain had no equivalent of Siemens and AEG (two of the world's top 4 producers of electrical goods at that time). German and American firms even dominated its electrical industry before ww1.

Besides, other engineering fields like precision instruments and factory machine tool - Germany, NO CONTEST.
 
Using electric power increase the efficiency and prodcutivity compared to coal and gas, while also reducing machinery size.

Besides, what you said was the reason why that British manufacturing industry of electrical and electronic devices was retarded and clearly lagged behind German firms at that time.

Before 1914 and even after, Britain had no equivalent of Siemens and AEG (two of the world's top 4 producers of electrical goods at that time). German and American firms even dominated its electrical industry before ww1.

Besides, other engineering fields like precision instruments and factory machine tool - Germany, NO CONTEST.

The problem with all of your statements is they are [Citation Needed]

Declaring no contest even with all the capitalisation in the world is not the same, as well, being able to submit some sourced numbers for say comparative levels of capitalisation in the economic sense.

What we need to assess your argument is what measure of electrical and electronic goods you are using be it number of units, output measured by value in a common currency or another means.

For example the idea that Britain had no equivalent to Siemens or AEG would bear greater weight if you actually gave evidence of understanding which were Britain's leading electrical and electronics firms of the period.

Do you know for example how many precision instruments the British manufactured in a given year? Because without quantifiable figures your statements simply float about on the internet like corks in the Atlantic, no use to anyone and a danger to fish and seagulls.
 
Using electric power increase the efficiency and prodcutivity compared to coal and gas, while also reducing machinery size...........................

As I mentioned earlier the need to convert to electrical machinery wasn't as acute in Britain due to its high quality coal which allowed high efficiency steam machinery whereas brown coal in Germany did not. So is this efficiency measured against high quality, widely available and cheap black coal driven machinery or crappy brown coal which has to travel over considerable distances?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The problem with all of your statements is they are [Citation Needed]

Declaring no contest even with all the capitalisation in the world is not the same, as well, being able to submit some sourced numbers for say comparative levels of capitalisation in the economic sense.

What we need to assess your argument is what measure of electrical and electronic goods you are using be it number of units, output measured by value in a common currency or another means.

For example the idea that Britain had no equivalent to Siemens or AEG would bear greater weight if you actually gave evidence of understanding which were Britain's leading electrical and electronics firms of the period.

Do you know for example how many precision instruments the British manufactured in a given year? Because without quantifiable figures your statements simply float about on the internet like corks in the Atlantic, no use to anyone and a danger to fish and seagulls.


Electrical industry: no contest:
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=IPngdGug27kC&pg=PA348&dq=german+electrical+industry+in+1914&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjczM-7ysjQAhWIvrwKHQCxA7UQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=german electrical industry in 1914&f=false
Germany accounted for 46% of world export market in 1914

https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...QAhVFH5QKHd3QD6cQ6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q&f=false
Electricity output: Germany (13000 megawatt hours)> Entente (11600 megawatt hours)

No equivalent, of course. World's top 4 electrical firms were GE, Westinghouse, Siemens and AEG. English firms were Ferranti, Crompton, Marconi, or later English Electric and GEC (BRitish one) were no match for these giants.

For precision instruments, I have given you the link about optical industry. 60% of British optics were imported form Jena, 30% from France in 1914.
 
Top