Keynes Tames The British Bear

Can anyone recommend a likely example of best practice to aim for in these large yard modernisations? New large naval dry docks to a capacity of 1000 feet by 118 feet (panamax length and a little wider than the lock's 110 feet) with a 35 foot draft seems plenty. Certainly more than enough for HMS Hood, two C class light cruisers or even three fleet destroyers.

I've seen mention of suggestions in the late 1910's for the minimum size for dry docks for battleships to be 1,200ft x 175ft.

Trouble is, no new docks were built in the UK after Rosyth.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Looking at it, electrification was occuring on main-lines in the 30s. The government's Weir report reccomended it in 1931, but it wasn't implemented for lack of investment capital, even though it would result in long term savings. It seems a perfect Keynsian project.
That is a great source (Weir). It seems likely that the arterial routes will be electrified over the next fifteen years. Added to the increase in loading gauge is a serious boost to national (now nationally owned) infrastructure. The required generation will boost demand for large steam turbines. Handy for supplying capital ship builds later. 90,000 jobs created at a cost of over £300,000,000 (including new generating plant).
 
Last edited:
That is a great source (Weir).

Yep, by implication it tells you quite a lot about the industrial situation of Britain in the early 1930s.

It seems likely that the arterial routes will be electrified over the next five to ten years. Added to the increase in loading gauge is a serious boost to national (now nationally owned) infrastructure. The required generation will boost demand for large steam turbines. Handy for supplying capital ship builds later.

It will also substantially upgrade the British electrical infrastructure, and basically create a national grid running along the rail tracks. There will be network/external benefits seen as that synergises with the development of new towns/suburban expansion as well.
 
Last edited:
Looking at it, electrification was occuring on main-lines in the 30s. The government's Weir report reccomended it in 1931, but it wasn't implemented for lack of investment capital, even though it would result in long term savings. It seems a perfect Keynsian project.

Are there any links to this?
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I've seen mention of suggestions in the late 1910's for the minimum size for dry docks for battleships to be 1,200ft x 175ft.

Trouble is, no new docks were built in the UK after Rosyth.
It was speculated that Rosyth docks could be built with 128 foot lock gates, but that didn't happen. I expect that suggestions over panamax would be kicked into long grass as impractical.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Weir Report 2.2MB:
In regard to manufacturing capacity, we are informed that the facilities available for dealing with the electrical equipment of locomotives and multiple unit stock for main line electrification are greatly in excess of any demand which has hitherto arisen, and it is estimated that a complete electrification of British railways could be undertaken with the existing facilities if the work was spread over a period of fifteen years. In the past the demand for this clam of equipment has fluctuated widely, and if a comprehensive scheme were adopted it would be of the utmost importance to arrange that there would be a steady load on the various factories for a definite period of time. This would enable the manufacture to be carried out. on the mod economic basis, thereby ensuring a minimum price to the railway. In addition, there would be the great advantage that the workers employed on this class of material would have steady employment, and they would not be subject to dismissal when particular contracts are finished as is the case at present. The importance of having a body of skilled work people continuously employed cannot be over-estimated.
Looks like this would cause a firming up of the heavy engineering industries associated with railways.
The following approximate figures (for 19%: give an outline of the extent of our British
railway system (excluding the London Tube Railways and the Metropolitan District) :-
Issued Capital ................................................................. .&1,134,770,000
Number of Shareholdings .........................................................8 01,000
Number of Employees (Week ended 8th March, 1930). ....................6 46,000
Total Route Mileage .................................................................... .20,300
Total Track Mileage including sidings .............................................5 2,500
Total Engine Mileage ........................................................... .593.519,000
Coal consumed by Steam Locomotives and Rail Motors (tons). ........1 3,413,000
Steam J~comotives .................................................................... 23,400
Passenger Carriages (including Rail Motors) .................................... 49,300
Approximate number of Passenger Journeys .......................... .1,347,667,000
Merchandise and Mineral Traffic Vehides ....................................... 700,000
Goods and Mineral Tonnage transported (tons) ..........................3.2 9,579,000
Live Stock transported (head) ................................................1 7,700,000
Gross Receipts .................................................................. &14,661,000
Net Receipts ...................................................................... ..£42,746,000
Salaries and Wages paid ...................................................... £113,073,000
Railways made money already, so an increase in profits would be a good investment.
 
Last edited:
Weir Report 2.2MB:Looks like this would cause a firming up of the heavy engineering industries associated with railways.

It would also be a great opportunity for things like tunnel widening, etc, given that the proposed overhead system would already require that they be made taller.

The results of the expertise and industry that would be built up would also be exportable.

Railways made money already, so an increase in profits would be a good investment.

Backed by the security of a 15 year programme, substantial private sector investment in power and civil engineering would be viable as well.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
It would also be a great opportunity for things like tunnel widening, etc, given that the proposed overhead system would already require that they be made taller.
...
The results of the expertise and industry that would be built up would also be exportable.
...
Backed by the security of a 15 year programme, substantial private sector investment in power and civil engineering would be viable as well.
Taller and wider according to the new loading gauge. The extra width will allow faster safe speeds or larger freight loads.

Investment in telephony (roll out of the director system, more research into an electronic system by Tommy Flowers MBE) will also build expertise and export potential. I'm wondering if the city might actually piggyback onto domestic investment. Perhaps some of the American funds that invested in German miracle growth might diversify with some shares in British companies that stood to benefit from the millions in government bonds investing in infrastructure, research and manufacturing.

Would WW2 happen?
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Reassessing naval builds

https://sites.google.com/site/alikchi/

A superb analysis.
Escort frigates should be limited to 12 a year. As should new destroyers.
Maintaining and improving current stock of Cruisers and Battleships gets a higher priority. Four G-3 builds becomes modified to fit Washington treaty. Extra Hoods? EDIT:Nelsons
 
Last edited:

Sior

Banned
Taller and wider according to the new loading gauge. The extra width will allow faster safe speeds or larger freight loads.

Investment in telephony (roll out of the director system, more research into an electronic system by Tommy Flowers MBE) will also build expertise and export potential. I'm wondering if the city might actually piggyback onto domestic investment. Perhaps some of the American funds that invested in German miracle growth might diversify with some shares in British companies that stood to benefit from the millions in government bonds investing in infrastructure, research and manufacturing.

Would WW2 happen?

Wider taller tunnels/bridges on the railways would have a big impact on armoured vehicle design, in OTL the size of tank was limited to what could fit on a flatbed, limiting the turret ring size and limiting the main gun size.
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
I'm not sure I see your point. As is quite clear from reading the General Theory Keynsian policies are designed to reduce investment and increase consumption, ie the opposite of what you say.

The British problem in the 30s is concentrated in the declining stape industries in the poorer regions. New industries prospered, received modest government support and brought prosperity where they were concentrated.

The capacity of expansionary policies to deal with these would be extremely limited - there just wasn't enough labour flexibility in terms of skills or pay to respond to the demand, a more likely result would be inflation.

Keynesian policies only cause stagflation in the long run. When inflationary expectations are relatively low and wages and prices are relatively sticky as a result, you can inflate the currency in exchange for employment all you want.

Of course, the moment you stop the economy crashes and unemployment is worse than when you started. And if you don't stop than inflation expectations increase and you start running into a galloping stagflation.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Wider taller tunnels/bridges on the railways would have a big impact on armoured vehicle design, in OTL the size of tank was limited to what could fit on a flatbed, limiting the turret ring size and limiting the main gun size.
Certainly something I'd considered, but the main impact will be on freight wagon and later container sizes.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Keynesian policies only cause stagflation in the long run. When inflationary expectations are relatively low and wages and prices are relatively sticky as a result, you can inflate the currency in exchange for employment all you want.

Of course, the moment you stop the economy crashes and unemployment is worse than when you started. And if you don't stop than inflation expectations increase and you start running into a galloping stagflation.
Slumps in the economy caused by shocks are temporary and so are the drops in demand. Only by cutting down supply to the new level does the economy stay in the slump. Weaning off infrastructure spending as the economy picks up reduces the risk of inflation and the results of the investment remain to boost productivity in the long term.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Revisiting this thread makes me feel sad that the OTL UK economy has been frozen at a lower level by withdrawing public investment.

On the bright side in this ATL there is much to examine in detail.

The adult education programme initiated by rolling out the Village College project nationwide offers a chance for older unemployed skilled workers (less likely to be rehired when things pick up) to share their trade with a new generation. The machine shops in each VC make this viable for the instructors while central government re-training grants make this sort of course free for the unemployed (subject to steady progress). Due to the requirement for steady progress (continual assessment) many colleges found evening class students making use of the workshop between day time lessons or even assisting the 'Shop teacher during classes.

Apprentice pieces needed to justify the use of material so work was often basic sub-contract work of low priority for local engineering concerns. Final year students often had work that required more advanced lathes brought in by said concerns to further exploit burgeoning skills. By the time they left school, they were ready to start work at the most challenging level of machine tool engineering.

The same grant scheme that subsidised evening classes also provided extra apprentice places in modern skills based trades.

Shortages of electrical workers at factories such as Hoover meant that even in times of low demand for vacuum cleaners productivity needed to be improved to keep things running with less staff. The national line electrification was running ahead of re-tunnelling and bridging. The first customers for the new cabling and generation were industries close to the lines rather than the railways themselves. It was clear that additional cabling and generators would have to be employed to meet demand.

Critics pointed to the shortages of skilled workers and growth in demand for power as indicators that the economy was overheated by all this borrowing. MacDonald answered that there were still over 500,000 unemployed and that the economy was off its knees, but workers would need retraining from the basic infrastructure projects to more skilled trades if the recovery was to be sustainable. Unskilled public works began to wind down from this point and education grants doubled. Unemployment even rose back up to 750,000 for a year before the switch to skilled projects picked up the slack. By the end of his term unemployment was falling once more and exports were starting to pick up. Tax income had met the greater demand for interest payments and now it seemed likely that the renewed economy would be able to repay the rolling bond loans eventually. It had been a near thing*, but by the time of the election MacDonald could argue that his policy was vindicated and that Britain was 'greater then ever'.

* = Britain had been forced to sell some her gold bullion reserves in the peak demand years. The treasury had get 'top dollar' for the gold, but it had added to pressure on the pound. That had hit foreign investment, but improved the balance of payments as a weak pound bought less abroad and made exports cheaper.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
To those that argued that MacDonald had spent on guns like a warmonger he countered that he had limited armament and reduced the size of the armed forces to a more affordable level. Any spending on infrastructure and equipment was to meet long neglected areas vital to basic defence needs. It would have been irresponsible of even a peace loving government, such as his, to ignore such run down facilities and outdated equipment. He then went on to itemise all the ares of far greater non-military spending:


  1. The new national electric railway
  2. New and improved roads to every part of the country
  3. Retraining the unemployed for new (semi) skilled jobs
  4. Boosting industrial infrastructure and raw material supply
  5. Rehousing and slum clearance
  6. An expanded education programme better suited to a skilled economy
  7. Expanding the capacity of ports to boost the long term capacity for trade
  8. Expanding and updating the telephone network
The liberals tried to take some of the glory for these achievements while trying to paint MacDonald as a profligate spender that had limited their accomplishments by poor regulation of government spending, but they found it hard to criticise him without tarring themselves with the same brush. Traditional liberal voters didn't take kindly to talk of greater regulation from their candidates and while Labour support increased enough to gain a slim majority, Liberal support collapsed. Lloyd-George stepped down after the elections and retired to the back benches.

Conservatives made a lot of political capital out of the huge deficit and mountainous national debt, but the rescue of so many families from poverty and squalor ensured that Labour support exceeded it. the more bullish elements in the City could even see light at the end of the tunnel for Britain and regarded the domestic economy as a good bet. All those bonds had kept liquidity high. If inflation could be managed now a soft landing as the private sector picked up would offer steady growth and higher interest rates. Plenty of room for profit there.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
The Royal Navy was limited as to the number of ships and heavy guns she could build by treaty, so a lot of work was done on the 4.7 inch gun. A new dual purpose, mechanically fused, powered dual gun turret. A two part round (powder sack and projectile) was centrally fed into the turret and automatically fed onto an auto ram system, at any angle and elevation, on either gun.

WNBR_45-45_mk1_Renown_pic.jpg


These 120mm guns were limited by a separating safety rail to prevent them firing on each other.

All refitted capital ships got the new dual 4.7 inch L/55 DP as secondary from 1936 onwards. All new build and refitted destroyers, frigates and sloops got three, two or one of these turrets respectively from 1934 onwards. The heaviest armament for a sloop of war at this time.

A dual 3" L/60 cal AAA powered mount based on this offered limitless (in the treaty sense) AAA guns for ships of all sizes from 1935. Although for practical purposes it was employed only on Escort Cruisers and ships of Destroyer size and below. It had a rate of fire of 70 rounds per minute per gun.

Unfortunately continued manufacture of 15" L/42 guns meant that there were just too many available to justify switching to 15" L/45 or 16" L/45 guns, although research continued on the 16 inch gun and triple mount. All later pre-1940 battleship, battlecruiser and monitor builds would use the old 15" gun. At least it would simplify logistics. However the quad mounted 15" L/42 turret was one of the great research failures of the 1930s. It would be 1945 before the Hood's three quad turrets fired effectively (one aft, one for'd, one superfiring for'd).
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Development of the dual purpose (120mm) 4.7 inch L/55 twin turret had shown the difficulty of training a large gun at a fast moving aircraft. So all plans to make the 8" gun for treaty cruisers dual purpose were scrapped in favour of fitting the DP 4.7" guns as secondary armament. The simplified 8" twin turrets had a maximum elevation of 50° (to maximise range). This afforded a little more weight (lower turret) for the secondary armament and made the later Norfolk class cheaper to build. These classes were the first inter-war cruisers built and had enough range to be useful in the Pacific (based at Singapore or Hong Kong).

The Norfolk Class (Norfolk, Dorsetshire, Northumberland, Surrey, York and Exeter) were equipped with air conditioning (with long warm weather cruises in mind). They had no amidships magazine (Northumberland onwards) to allow a box citadel fore and aft of increased armour thickness (3").
As a result of the magazine changes, and to keep the funnels distant from the bridge, only two funnels were required; the forward boiler room uptakes trunked up into a large fore-funnel. This was raked in Northumberland-York to clear the flue gasses from the bridge, but was straight in Exeter owing to an altered bridge design and more extensive trunking. To maintain homogeneity of appearance, York stepped raked masts and Exeter vertical ones. York had a tall "platform" style bridge as seen in the Countys, which was somewhat distant from 'B' turret. This was because it had been intended to fit a catapult and floatplane to the roof of the turret, which needed clearance distance and required a tall bridge to provide forward view. The roof of the turret, however, was not sufficiently strong to carry this catapult and it was never fitted. Exeter was ordered two years later and the bridge was redesigned in light of this, being lower, further forward and fully enclosed, as later seen in the light cruiser classes.
The twelve, 7,500 tons standard, Leander Class light cruisers were designed to carry four twin BL 6 in (152 mm) Mk. XXIII guns two aft and two forward, superfiring, on the centreline. Secondary armament consisted of four dual purpose 4.7 inch L/55 twin turrets. The later twelve Town class (HMS Southampton onwards) were a little heavier at 8,100 tons. They employed three triple BL 6 inch Mk XXIII naval gun turrets (one aft) and the same secondary armament. The Dido Class escort cruisers would go over to an entirely dual purpose armament with 8x 4.7 inch L/55 twin turrets (replacing the 6" twin turrets of the Leander design with extra DP guns). Eight guns able to fire directly fore or aft, twelve to either side. At higher elevations it was often possible to train all sixteen guns on target. Later Escort Destroyers used 3" DP twin turrets as secondary armament with the advent of the proximity fuse.

All these cruisers were limited, by treaty, to 10,000 tons standard displacement. Escort, light and heavy refers more to the size of the main guns. Light AAA was a combination of twin 3" turrets and 2 pounder (40mm) guns.

Double and Triple 15"/42 gun turret production exceeds battleships and battle cruisers equipped to use it by 100%. There are three spare barrels for every turret.
Queen Elizabeth class battleships (Five ships with eight guns each)
Revenge class battleships (Five ships with eight guns each)
Renown class battlecruisers (Two ships with six guns each)
HMS Hood - battlecruiser (Eight guns)
Nelson-class battleships (Two ships with nine guns each)
Advanced post-Hood/Renown Battle Cruiser designs employing three triple turrets (one aft) make use of a further nine triple turrets.

The Queen Elizabeth Class were given new machinery, thicker armour, torpedo bulges, 4.7" DP turrets instead of their 6" guns and greater elevation of the 15" twin turret guns to 35°. Unable to update the Revenge class, they were replaced by five new battleships to a twelve gun design (four triple turrets) laid down in 1937 and commissioned in 1940 (KGV Class) and were given a new role as barrage (NGFS) ships. Four Ark Royal Class 22,000 ton aircraft carriers were laid down in 1934-1935 and commissioned in 1938-1939. One each for the Med and Far East fleets with two in the Home fleet. The Glorious, Hermes* (Far East), Courageous, Eagle (Med) and Furious, Argus* (Home) were already in service. So the smaller two(*) were taken out of service as training ships. Hermes was later reintroduced as the first Depot Carrier that presaged the Unicorn Class. HMS Furious was refitted to Courageous/Glorious Class standard.

That's 50 triple turrets (25 in use) and 100 double turrets (50 in use) for a total of 350 barrels, 175 in use.
 
Last edited:
Top