Best Air Force 1939-1941

[ctrian]

I'm going to provide one more input then bow to GrauGeist's common-sense observation that this is supposed to be about the best AF in 1939-41.

Re the USSR, I think the key thing was Germany overextended itself and Stalin literally moved whole factories east to maintain production. Last time I checked, the USA didn't supply the T-34 or Il-2 which were real war-winners for the USSR (in addition to millions of men and women in uniform).

Once more, you are confusing lack of gold reserves with an inability to pay for home-grown military hardware. The UK was exchanging gold for US dollars to pay for weapons but those gold reserves were running out. However, the UK was paying for all the factories across the Empire and Commonwealth that were producing war materiel using Pounds Sterling. If the British economy was contracting without lend lease, how would lend lease have stopped that process?

Re your "go it alone" comment - Britain had gone alone since France surrendered in 1940. We had no allies who could help offset the military production. That situation could have gone on for some time without your forecast "collapse". Once again, please show me where a lack of US materiel would have resulted in the loss of North Africa or the Middle East or the Far East?

I don't understand what you're trying to say ,without LL the economy would contract.This didn't happen historically because of LL.As for ''go it alone'' check the US material that your forces used in N.Africa and Far East.2 Sq only of P-36 ? What about zero? How will that affect ops ? What happens when there are no P-40's in Africa? You'll replace them with what? If you had extra capacity why didn't you use it? If your tanks were good why did you switch to the Sherman? All rhetorical questions of course...

[buffnut453]

You obviously didn't read my earlier posts. Losing 2 squadrons of P-36s would have had no impact on the Far East - there were 10-times that number of Hurricane and Spitfire units. As for the P-40s, most of those could have soldiered on with Hurricanes. The alternative to Lend Lease was simply not getting US-produced materiel but that doesn't mean the economy will contract. For the third time, prior to Lend Lease the UK paid for US purchases by converting gold reserves to US dollars. The gold reserves are like savings in the bank. Without the US equipment, the UK would have used existing resources (eg not retiring Hurricanes quite so early).

[ctrian]

You obviously didn't read my earlier posts. Losing 2 squadrons of P-36s would have had no impact on the Far East - there were 10-times that number of Hurricane and Spitfire units. As for the P-40s, most of those could have soldiered on with Hurricanes. The alternative to Lend Lease was simply not getting US-produced materiel but that doesn't mean the economy will contract. For the third time, prior to Lend Lease the UK paid for US purchases by converting gold reserves to US dollars. The gold reserves are like savings in the bank. Without the US equipment, the UK would have used existing resources (eg not retiring Hurricanes quite so early).

In '41 and '42 ? ????

[buffnut453]

RAF Order of Battle in Sept 1942 (note that the Mohawks only commenced operational service in May 1942) had 10 squadrons of Hurricanes and one squadrons of Mohawks. So the Mohawks constituted 10% of the total, which aligns with the shoot-from-the-hip figures I gave in my last email.

[parsifal]

The assumption here is that without LL the british war effort would collapse. Have produced some expert opinion to refute the claim that britain was bankrupt. Out of money, yes, out of investments that were returning good incomes no, out of productive capacity no. no options, no.

What would have happened if the LL Act had not been passed. No evidence has been shown that Britain would collapse has been provided, so we just have to let that one slide, until we hear something I guess.

If the US did not enter into agreement about Lend Lease then what is it going to do with its spare production. It will not get quite the outputs that British finance allowed it to in the lead up to war, but its still going to mean that the US military is going to be a lot stronger than it was historically. If it going to be asumed that for some reason the US is ignoring events in Europe, for reasons unclear, illogical an unexplained (but lets go with it anyways), the only two places the US is going to deploy these additional assets are in the continental US and in the Far East. The additional deployments into Continental US will mean a greater readiness state for the US, and quicker mobilization when the US does eventually join the conflict. Instead of it taking a year to prepare just three divs for Europe, they are going to have perhaps 8 or 10 ready in six months or so. The bomber assets means better resources to combat the Uboats, and that means a quicker recovery in the ETO. I dont see a lot of difference in the outcome, just a different pathway. Britain has less resources, but she also has less time to walk the tightrope. The US cavalry arrives sooner, because they are better prepared prewar......

In the pacific, an increased deployment by the US will mean less need for the Brits to expand their garrisons in this TO. Instead of all those Buffaloes and Beaforts and Blenheims, manned by Commonwealth and British personnel. I would think it reasonable to assume that instead of Force Z deploying to Singas, and the dozen or so cruisers and the 40 or so destroyers that British sent there in the months prior to the outbreak of war in the Far East, that these assets would be retained in home waters,. The DDs would definately be needed to replace the four pipers provided under Lend Lease in 1940-41, but instead of being manned by British sailors, these ships would now be manned by USN personnel. Some of these ships would end up in the Far East. Instead of the POW and Repulse, we would probably see the USN accelarate the completion of the North Caolinas and send them to the Far East, probably to Subic Bay. But the end result of all this is that instead of British personnel and equipment contributing to far eastern defence, it would be US forces shouldering the whole burden. The additional British resources would of course be returned or retained for the ETO

So, what do the British do if there is no lend lease. I think that this situation would have required a more strictly neutral attitude by the US from the very beginning of the war, ie from 1939 or even earlier. They would not simply wake up and say "oh, and by the way, no more planes and guns"....more, from the very beginning there would be no assistance provided. So what are the options for the brits in that situation. Well, for a start they have a whole lot of additional cash that they can use, so where does it go. Instead of spending its gold reserves to set up the factories in the US, the British would have been forced to invest this capital elsewhere. They could spend it expanding their own industrial basis, or they could invest it in the developing war industries in the dominions. I kinda like the latter, so lets have a look at that.

The obvious places were the developing economies of the empire....Canada, Australia NZ India and South Africa. The money spent on the US industrial complex would, in my opinion, be spent on Commonwealth production. I think that this would have the effect of pushing outputs from these sources by about a year to 18 months. I know, for example, that the delays to the Australian tank production plans were due primarily to a lack of funding to set up the engine and steel rolling facilities.

Similar delays were experienced with the Beafort program. The Boomerang was not started because the RAAF received Buffaloes. Without that aircraft, and with some British investment capital, it is not unreasonable to assume the appearance of the Boomerang at least two years before it did historically. all the technology was there, they just needed the money to make it work. In the case of the Canadians their aircraft industry was even more developed as was their tank production. Both the major dominions had rapidly expanding industrial capabilities. If we look at Australias aircraft industry, , in 1941 we produced 636 aircraft. In 1942 this increased to well over 1300. The Canadians were even more spectacular.

So, whilst not having LL is a problem, ther is no evidence presented to indicate a collapse, and in fact thinking about it, there may well have been some compensations. It would have been great to see how Boomerangs would have fared over the western Desert, or Ca15s over Germany, or perhaps the CA-4 Woomera Bomber, or the RAM or Sentinel Tank designs. I think they would have done fine to be honest. Australia had plans to buid a heavy cruiser, carriers and destroyers. There were plans to build more than a million tons of shipping. The Canadians actually built more than a million tons, so I guess, with additional cash to help them along, they would just have to build....another million tons!!!!

[ctrian]

Like i said before you were doing them the favor .You know it's too bad the people back then were not as smart as you, build everything in the Commonwealth why didn't they try that ...Counterfactual history at it's best

[parsifal]

Like i said before you were doing them the favor .You know it's too bad the people back then were not as smart as you, build everything in the Commonwealth why didn't they try that ...Counterfactual history at it's best

And attempting to say without LL British production is zero is not "counter factual" (whatever the hell that is).

And you didnt say we did them a favour. You started this off by attempting to say that British production would collapse without LL. You produced nothing to support that, you or your mate. I produced some reasonably expert opinion to refute the claim, further have tried to determine what or how the unused resources that are associated with LL might be utilized. If British money isnt used on LL, then how would it be used. If US production is not being used to equip British forces, then how is that being used. Resources just dont disappear, much as you would hope they would, they just transmogrify (go and look it up) to some other form

[ctrian]

And attempting to say without LL British production is zero is not "counter factual" (whatever the hell that is).

And you didnt say we did them a favour. You started this off by attempting to say that British production would collapse without LL. You produced nothing to support that, you or your mate. I produced some reasonably expert opinion to refute the claim, further have tried to determine what or how the unused resources that are associated with LL might be utilized. If British money isnt used on LL, then how would it be used. If US production is not being used to equip British forces, then how is that being used. Resources just dont disappear, much as you would hope they would, they just transmogrify (go and look it up) to some other form

Your own interview admits they would have to SCALE DOWN the war effort in the middle of the WAR.What more do you need to understand that things were near the end?
What money? Who would keep selling to you since you were broke? You need foreign currency for imports.How long would the other Commonwealth countries continue to receive payment in a worthless currency? It was a matter of life and death that you receive equipment and supplies and you can thank Roosevelt for keeping you afloat.Even so with all that help you lost Far East and you came very close to total defeat in N.Africa.You seem to think your country was on the same league with USSR and USA ,sorry but you had neither the manpower,the raw materials or the industrial infrastructure.I'm not trying to denigrate Britain but you simply couldn't deal with the Axis esp Germany even the tiny forces that were fighting against you.

[Lighthunmust]

Both sides in this debate believe they have led the "horse" to water. Why don't all of you agree you are never going to make the "horse" drink and get back to the thread topic. This was a great thread, with very interesting on topic posts I was enjoying reading but unfortunately I think anymore time spent visiting it is not worthwhile if the lend-lease bickering doesn't stop. Just my opinion, I'll be back one more time to see if the majority agrees with it.

[michaelmaltby]

".... The money spent on the US industrial complex would, in my opinion, be spent on Commonwealth production. I think that this would have the effect of pushing outputs from these sources by about a year to 18 months."

This is a sound assumption, Parsifal. I don't think Ctrian understands the nature of the Commonwealth. The last time I checked, Britain wasn't "paying" Canada's wartime production bills. Canada was. (And I am sure the same was true for Australia, NZ, etc. [Maurtitius donated a squadron of Hurricanes IIRC]

As far as US neutrality is concerned. Ford and GM Canada (to name two) were involved in fulfilling Canadian government contracts as quickly as they could be - after September, 1939. While Ford and GM Germany were busy fulfilling GERMAN government contracts at the same time. By its nature, capitalism is 'neutral', if left without government intervention. .

http://wwii.ca/content-17/world-war-...-war-industry/

MM

[Shortround6]

Well, just because your corporate head quarters is in another country that is at war with the country that you are in doesn't mean you can refuse government orders for equipment or production. They just might call it treason and have you replaced by somebody more willing to go along with 'their' ideas. And no, you don't get the golden parachute retirement buyout so you can sit out the war in a neutral country either.

[Tante Ju]

If the US did not enter into agreement about Lend Lease then what is it going to do with its spare production. It will not get quite the outputs that British finance allowed it to in the lead up to war....

So... the British built US industry, too... that is news.

[buffnut453]

Shortround,

This is going way, waaayy off topic but I strongly recommend the book "Seduced by Hitler: the Choices of a Nation and the Ethics of Survival" by Adam LeBor and Roger Boyes. It's a fascinating study of the decisions individuals made that enabled Hitler and his cronies to succeed. One very interesting example given is Sweden which, although neutral, provided most of its iron ore to Germany, begging the question about the meaning of neutrality particularly when you are supplying a war machine as abhorrent as that led by Nazi ideology.

Cheers,
B-N

[Tante Ju]

Money does not stink - said a roman emperor..

[buffnut453]

So... the British built US industry, too... that is news.

US industry capitalised on European rearmament. In 1941, the US Army was exercising with wooden dummy rifles and trucks driving round with the word "Tank" painted on the sides. The US military in 1940-41 was a mere shell with little substance to it, largely driven by economic limitations in the aftermath of the Great Depression. The US defence industry was similarly constrained - an order for 100 fighter aircraft for the USN was something to be fought over. European rearmament enabled US industry to expand in 1939-1940 and move away from small-scale manufacturing towards full-bore production lines.