# Lend Lease for Britain



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

Let's continue the discussion here.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

_I cannot speak for all the dominions, but I can tell you a little about my own country. In WWI, Australias Prime Minister had said, "we will fight for Britain to the last man and shilling" And very nearly did. In the lead up to WWII, the Australian economy was raidly industrialising. If 1936 is taken as the base year, with an industrial index of 100, then by 1945, that index had grown to over 1500. We were still mainly an agricultural nation, but we could not grow enough sheep and cattle, shear enough wool, harvest enough wheat, mine and smelt enough iron, dig enough coal or aluminium or copper to meet our domestic and world markets. In 1940 we posted a surplus of over 35m pounds. In the second world war we approached the war from the standpoint of not fighting to the last man and shilling. We would do what was posible with no pain or hurt to the domestic economy however there were never any difficulties for Australia in terms of trade or balance of payment figures. Where we came up short was in manpower. We chose not to invest our surpluses in capital infrastructure. Some of the surplus went to purchase of foreign military equipment, a mix of British and American stuff mostly. But with a surplus the size we had, it was easily within Australias capacity to increase our defence expenditures, and that meant purchase of foreign equipment. We could easily have doubled or tripled our foreign purchases of US equipment, and still not be i too much trouble. That is demonstrated in our 1941 and 1942 expenditures. in that year, the only year that we felt significantly threatened, we really did triple our foreign purchases, as well as increasing domestic production by 1.6 times. And still we did not eat into our reserves. 

Australias trade routes were never more threatened than anybody else really, and our balance of payments were certainly never threatened by it. In 1942, when it looked for a time that allied shipping was in trouble, due to the stupidity of Ernest J King, and also because of a Japoanese submarine campaign down the east coast of Australia (that sank 250000 tons of local shipping) plans were well under way to build close to amillion tons of replacement shipping. It was never needed. our brothers in Canada did produce over 1.3 million tons of shipping, and I understand they still had spare capacity as well. It was not needed, and given that the Americans had the economies of scale, the most effieicient industrial base in the world, we fell back into simply payting them for what we needed

Moreover I am certain that the other dominions were in similar good shape financially . There was easily the capacity in the dominions to take up the slack of cash and carry, if the lend lease deal had not been signed. What may have happened with this increased committment earlier in the war is that our economic growth later in the war might have slowed, because of a lack of investment. I dont see that as a big issue however...how many times can you shoot your enemy.....

After the war broke out our first premier, Menzies, wanted to increase our commitment to the ETO, but were overruled, in part I think because the Americans were seen as providing assistance to the British empire. if that support had been witheld, by not signing the LL agreement, I dont think it all unreasonable or unrealistic to assume the Australians, and the other dominions, to increase their wartime committments and simply buy what the british could not. It was well within their capabiliies, based on the figures I have posted. 

I can only repeat what I have been saying to you for a while now. Lend lease was a mutual assistance package that helped everyone....the some of the parts together amounted to more than the sum of the parts separately. There would have been some pain if the LL agreement had not been signed, but there was never the slightest chance of the catastrophic collapse that you keep rabbiting on about. _

It's interesting to know that a country can fight a war with sheep , cattle, shear , wool and other furry things.And of course it would be easy to mass produce armaments.I can only guess that the people back then were not as sharp as you .Don't you think you should have gone into politics?


----------



## Readie (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> _I cannot speak for all the dominions, but I can tell you a little about my own country. In WWI, Australias Prime Minister had said, "we will fight for Britain to the last man and shilling" And very nearly did. In the lead up to WWII, the Australian economy was raidly industrialising. If 1936 is taken as the base year, with an industrial index of 100, then by 1945, that index had grown to over 1500. We were still mainly an agricultural nation, but we could not grow enough sheep and cattle, shear enough wool, harvest enough wheat, mine and smelt enough iron, dig enough coal or aluminium or copper to meet our domestic and world markets. In 1940 we posted a surplus of over 35m pounds. In the second world war we approached the war from the standpoint of not fighting to the last man and shilling. We would do what was posible with no pain or hurt to the domestic economy however there were never any difficulties for Australia in terms of trade or balance of payment figures. Where we came up short was in manpower. We chose not to invest our surpluses in capital infrastructure. Some of the surplus went to purchase of foreign military equipment, a mix of British and American stuff mostly. But with a surplus the size we had, it was easily within Australias capacity to increase our defence expenditures, and that meant purchase of foreign equipment. We could easily have doubled or tripled our foreign purchases of US equipment, and still not be i too much trouble. That is demonstrated in our 1941 and 1942 expenditures. in that year, the only year that we felt significantly threatened, we really did triple our foreign purchases, as well as increasing domestic production by 1.6 times. And still we did not eat into our reserves.
> 
> Australias trade routes were never more threatened than anybody else really, and our balance of payments were certainly never threatened by it. In 1942, when it looked for a time that allied shipping was in trouble, due to the stupidity of Ernest J King, and also because of a Japoanese submarine campaign down the east coast of Australia (that sank 250000 tons of local shipping) plans were well under way to build close to amillion tons of replacement shipping. It was never needed. our brothers in Canada did produce over 1.3 million tons of shipping, and I understand they still had spare capacity as well. It was not needed, and given that the Americans had the economies of scale, the most effieicient industrial base in the world, we fell back into simply payting them for what we needed
> 
> ...



You forget that Au has a wealth of natural resources.
Coal, iron ore,gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat etc.
Cheers
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 24, 2011)

"..... It's interesting to know that a country can fight a war with sheep , cattle, shear , wool and other furry things.And of course it would be easy to mass produce armaments.I can only guess that the people back then were not as sharp as you .Don't you think you should have gone into politics?"

Always the smart ass ....

MM


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "..... It's interesting to know that a country can fight a war with sheep , cattle, shear , wool and other furry things.And of course it would be easy to mass produce armaments.I can only guess that the people back then were not as sharp as you .Don't you think you should have gone into politics?"
> 
> Always the smart ass ....
> 
> MM


 
I never asked you ,did you read all of ''Wages of Destruction '' or just the last chapter? I hear the new version has lots of pictures (kid friendly) if you're interested.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

Readie said:


> You forget that Au has a wealth of natural resources.
> Coal, iron ore,gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat etc.
> Cheers
> John


 
That is true but what about industrial capacity? Could they build high performance engines? 100 octane fuel? medium tanks? (not prototype REAL ones) AA guns ? AT guns? Comm equipment? Trucks? Can they build all the components? See how complicated it gets? Especially during a WAR.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 24, 2011)

".... I never asked you ,did you read all of ''Wages of Destruction '' or just the last chapter? I hear the new version has lots of pictures (kid friendly) if you're interested"

Always the smart ass.

MM


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> That is true but what about industrial capacity? Could they build high performance engines? 100 octane fuel? medium tanks? (not prototype REAL ones) AA guns ? AT guns? Comm equipment? Trucks? Can they build all the components? See how complicated it gets? Especially during a WAR.


I think you under estimate the capabilities of some countries which is kinda sad


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I think you under estimate the capabilities of some countries which is kinda sad


 
If wishes were horses...


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> If wishes were horses...


I can't talk for Australia but if you check this out it might surpride you 

Canadian industrial production during the Second World war.
•11 billion dollars of munitions
•1.7 million small arms
•43,000 heavy guns
•16,000 aircraft
•2 million tonnes of explosives
•815,000 military vehicles, 50,000 tanks and armoured gun carriers
•9,000 boats and ships
•
Anti-tank and field artillery

•
Naval guns

•
Small arms and automatic weapons

•
Radar sets and Electronics

•
Synthetic rubber

•
Uranium for the ’Manhattan Project’


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> If wishes were horses...



..... ;I think most of us would know who is the head and who is the tail.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2011)

From the other thread;

Ctrain.
"How can aircraft in '42 in N.Africa and Far East be bought and paid for by the Brits?"

None of the cars on your block is less than two years old?

Aug 1939 Poland orders 250 Buffaloes. Obviously never filled.

Dec. 1939 Belgium orders 40 Buffaloes and acquires a manufacturing license. 

Jan, 1940. The British give Brewster a 9.6 million dollar order for 120 Buffaloes, later increase to 170. 

April 1940. Production of the Belgian Buffaloes is started. One is completed in April and six more in May. With the fall of Belgium France is to take over the order. 

June 1940. Production of the British 339E aircraft is under way, 2 in May, 9 in June, 22 in July. Production suspended in August as some US navy planes are built. 

Sept 1940. First 339E buffaloes are delivered to the RAF in England and the type is rejected for use in Europe. Please note that it took from June until Sept to get planes from the factory in New York to England, re-assembled and test flown. 

Dec, 1940 339E production for the British is restarted. 

March 1941. Production of 339D Buffaloes for the Dutch starts along side continued production for the British. 

May, 1941. The last of the British 339Es are completed. many are sent to Singapore but 32 go to Rangoon. I wonder how long it took to get the Planes from New York to Rangoon?

BTW the Flying Tigers P-40s were landed in Rangoon in June of 1941. They don't see combat until after Pearl Harbor. 

First lend lease P-40s are the E-1 model ordered in May of 1941. The First ones show up in Egypt in Oct 1941. First combat action is Jan 1 1942. 

The RAF does *NOT* immediately ground all pre-lend-lease aircraft.


----------



## Readie (Jun 24, 2011)

Ok ok...

Lend lease was an agreement between the allies (old,time tested, loyal and trusted friends) to get around a problem. If the President of the USA got a political mile or two from it all then, that's all in the game. Churchill would have done the same if the boot was on the other foot.

Whenever the allies have been in the proverbial we have all rallied around and helped. We did that in WW1 and we are doing it now. 
Yes, the UK cannot afford to fight 2 world wars, Korea, Suez, the Falklands, the war on terror etc etc but...somehow we do, Sacrifices are made at home, deals are done but above all , loyalty is prized.
loyalty to our true friends, whatever that cost may be. 

I think from all the jibes and sneering comments from forum members in certain countries that they really do not understand the bond we have.

Like it or lump it, that's the way we were, we are and will always be.

Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> _I cannot speak for all the dominions, but I can tell you a little about my own country. In WWI, Australias Prime Minister had said, "we will fight for Britain to the last man and shilling" And very nearly did. In the lead up to WWII, the Australian economy was raidly industrialising. If 1936 is taken as the base year, with an industrial index of 100, then by 1945, that index had grown to over 1500. We were still mainly an agricultural nation, but we could not grow enough sheep and cattle, shear enough wool, harvest enough wheat, mine and smelt enough iron, dig enough coal or aluminium or copper to meet our domestic and world markets. In 1940 we posted a surplus of over 35m pounds. In the second world war we approached the war from the standpoint of not fighting to the last man and shilling. We would do what was posible with no pain or hurt to the domestic economy however there were never any difficulties for Australia in terms of trade or balance of payment figures. Where we came up short was in manpower. We chose not to invest our surpluses in capital infrastructure. Some of the surplus went to purchase of foreign military equipment, a mix of British and American stuff mostly. But with a surplus the size we had, it was easily within Australias capacity to increase our defence expenditures, and that meant purchase of foreign equipment. We could easily have doubled or tripled our foreign purchases of US equipment, and still not be i too much trouble. That is demonstrated in our 1941 and 1942 expenditures. in that year, the only year that we felt significantly threatened, we really did triple our foreign purchases, as well as increasing domestic production by 1.6 times. And still we did not eat into our reserves.
> 
> Australias trade routes were never more threatened than anybody else really, and our balance of payments were certainly never threatened by it. In 1942, when it looked for a time that allied shipping was in trouble, due to the stupidity of Ernest J King, and also because of a Japoanese submarine campaign down the east coast of Australia (that sank 250000 tons of local shipping) plans were well under way to build close to amillion tons of replacement shipping. It was never needed. our brothers in Canada did produce over 1.3 million tons of shipping, and I understand they still had spare capacity as well. It was not needed, and given that the Americans had the economies of scale, the most effieicient industrial base in the world, we fell back into simply payting them for what we needed
> 
> ...


 

The context of this question was whether the Dominions had the capacity to pay cash for US armaments. Primary production equals money, although wool is used in a wide range of miltary applications as are most of the minerals we produced. 


I never said that it would be easy to produce armements, but the question was do we have the capacity to purchase armamjents. You tried to put Australia and the other dominions in the same financial boat as mother Britain, and I showed you that for Australia, this simply was not the case. Because we were a society industrialising, our military output was a developing one. As it turned out, it was cheaper and more efficient to use US equipment to win the war, than embark on a program of greater home production. But the Australians proved in spades that they were capable of increasing their output of need be, as did the Canadians, and to a lesser extent the other dominions.

In the case of Canada, for example, you may be surprised to hear that the Canadian military production output was greater during the war than that of every European Axis country except Germany, and in the case of Germany, outproduced them in certain key categories, principally motor vehicles. You might be surprised that the biggest user of railway rolling stock outside the Soviet Union was not Germany, or Britain, or the US, it was India, owned and paid for, and receiving foreign exchange to its British owners


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> That is true but what about industrial capacity? Could they build high performance engines? 100 octane fuel? medium tanks? (not prototype REAL ones) AA guns ? AT guns? Comm equipment? Trucks? Can they build all the components? See how complicated it gets? Especially during a WAR.



Short answer is yes. About the only thing that you say that is true, is that the western economies are all interlinked and interdependent.

In regardss to the individual items that you mention.

Our sources of fuel were a mix of US and British controlled wells. We did not have any significant refining capacity, though post war we had no problem with that 

With regards to high performance engines, Australia produced the Double wasp, the single wasp, the Merlin, and was tooling up to produce the Griffon engine, but decided instead to switch to new jet technologies after the war. Factories were in the process of being prepred for these engines (the Griffons) throughout 1944.

I should also point out that one of the highest performing piston engined aircraft was the Ca 15 Kangaroo. Yes its a prototype, but the only reason we didnt build it was because we could build and use Mustangs. The RAAFs Mustangs were mostly home produced, as were our Mosquitos aircraft, and our Lincoln bombers. Canada was producing substantial numbers of lancasters during the war, so this inference that dominion industry, technology and science is backward somehow is just completely wrong. The canadians produced substantial numbers of Sherman tanks as well as their home designed Ram Tank. Australia wa at the forefront of military technology incidentally. The magnetron, that thing the Germans dearly wanted for themselves, was an Australian invention. We also discovered such advances as penacillin (I can never spell that damn word) the limited slip differential, and a few other innovatioons that I forget now 

With regards to tanks sure we did produce tanks they were not protoypes, they were ccepted into service. I will grant you, the production run was low, because the need was low, and we could do it cheaper using US and British imports, but the potential and the factory and the raw materials needed to build the tanks in some quantity if the need arose. I suggest you have a look at the AC-1 Sentinel and the AC3 Sentinel II tanks. Sentinel II was a prototype, but Sentinel I was an operational tank 

AA guns, AT guns (up to 17 pdr), armoured cars, Bren Gun carriers, trucks were all produced in Australia in very substantial numbers. Not as big as our Canadian brothers, but substantial, and with considerable potential to build even more if the situation required it

With regard to your comment about things being complicated, I couldnt agree more, but dont you think thats more than a little hypocritical on your part. You are attempting to argue that Britain was Bankrupt, which it wasnt...it had no cash reserves, but income was continuing to flow in and production continuing to go out, and that as a result of that lack of liquidity that would somehow halt the entire military output from Britain. Ther is absolutely no evidence to support that claim, and none provided by you....you just say the first thing that floats into that head of yours.....its very iroibnic to me that you, of all people would say, "its more complicated than that".....jeez, overwhelm me why dont you


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 24, 2011)

On the evidence, Ctrain is a troll.

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

Thats obvious, i agree
anyway for a little relief from this task, thought I might post some pics of the Sentinel series


Photo I is the Sentinel Is in production some time in early 1942. As I said, not a ptotype.....

Photo II is an ACII with long range tanks fitted. Not sure where this shot was taken, it might be at Chullora museum in Canberra


Phot III is the AC4 protype. the type was developed late 43 and tested in earlyt 1944. Was cleared for production, but never put into production

Photo IV is an AC1, modified to carry the 6 pounder. This was successfully trialled in Feb '43

All in all an intersting tank in my opinion.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

some further evidence of backward Australian technology. Sorry folks, but this is just too much fun.....

The CA15....could have been in production by mid 1944, but we chose to go with the Mustang instead. Capable in Protype form of speeds approaching 450 mph at level speed, it would have been compettitve even against a Ta152. Guess thats just not good enough for some.........


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

Next, the 25 pounder short

In 1942 Australian and American troops had been roughly handled by the Japanese 70mm howitzers which could be easily transported into the mountainous regions of New Guinea. By contrast our Infantry were forced to rely on mortars and a few 25 pounders that were found very difficult to deploy. The result was the baby 25 pounder, which in fact was a whole new design apart from the breech mechaism. deveoped in record time , it is a very intersting development, that turned our fortunes in the jungle right around

the Short 25-pdr gun was an Australian pack gun version of the British 25 pounder gun/howitzer, developed as a result of experience in the jungles of New Guinea indicating the need for really portable artillery. First produced in 1943, it was a shortened version of the standard 25 pounder, mounted on the Carriage 25-pdr Light, Mark 1. The "Baby 25-pdr" was intended for jungle combat and was used in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, during World War II. The gun could be towed by a light vehicle or broken down into sections, capable of pack transport.

The only resemblance to the 25pdr was the breech mechanism, recoil system, cradle and sights. The trail was simplified, wheels made smaller, and castor added to the end of the trail for easier manhandling. The shield and and platform were discarded, and a heavy spade added to anchor the gun while firing. The gun itself was drastically shortened to 46.69 inches, and a muzzle cap added, which gave a total length of 63.79 inches. Broken into 14 packs the total equipment weight was 3,015 Lbs. It could not be used with supercharge, so the maximum range was only 10,800 yards.

Damn those backward Australians, they persist in developing these useless pieces of kit...and building them ....what were they thinking


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

These backward Australians....I dont know.

The Owen Gun


Evelyn Owen, an Australian, developed his first automatic weapon, chambered for .22LR cartridge, by 1939, and offered it to Australian army. This weapon was a strange-looking revolver-type contraption with fixed "cylinder" instead of magazine, and thumb-operated trigger. However, by 1940 Owen produced its next design, in somewhat more potent (but still relatively mild) .32ACP / 7.65x17 Browning cartridge. This was more "usual" weapon, with traditional trigger, dual pistol grips and detachable box magazine, inserted under the receiver and inclined rearward and to the left. By 1941, Owen produced several more prototypes, chambered in .45ACP, 9mm Luger and even .38 Special revolver cartridges; this work was done at Lysaghts Newcastle Works in New South Wales, Australia. 9mm prototype, made by Lysaghts, was tested against Thompson and Sten submachine guns, and found superior to both. Adopted in 1942, this gun was manufactured until 1945 in three basic versions, Mark 1-42, Mark 1-43 (or Mark 1 Wood butt), and Mark 2. About 45 000 Owen SMGs were made by Lysaghts, with further production undertaken at other small arms factories including Lithgow. Estimated overall production was about 90000. And these remained in service with Australian forces until 1960s, through World War 2, Korean and Vietnam wars. In general, these weapons were well liked by soldiers due to their robustness, reliability and simplicity. The only downside of Owen SMG was its somewhat heavy weight.

Owen submachine guns are blowback operated, top-fed weapons that fired from open bolt. Receiver is of tubular shape, with the bolt body separated from the cocking handle by the small bulkhead inside. This precluded the dirt to enter the receiver area through the cocking handle slot, but also required the barrel to be made removable, as the bolt and return spring were pulled forward out of receiver. Barrel was held in place by simple latch, located at the front of the receiver, ahead of the magazine housing. Muzzle was equipped with recoil compensator. Pistol grips were made from wood, detachable buttstock was made of steel wire on Mk.1-42 Owens and from wood on later models. Due to the top mounted magazine, fixed sights were offset to the left.

Its basoc characteristics were 

Caliber: 9x19mm Luger/Para 
Weight: 4.22 kg unloaded
Length: 813 mm
Barrel length: 247 mm
Rate of fire: 700 rounds per minute
Magazine capacity: 32 rounds
Effective range: 100-200 meters

PHoto images



Guess the Australians never got the memo that they were broke, or that they were backward, or that they could only build prototypes

may have done a double post, if so, my apologies


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

The Ca4 woomera

This one is admittedly a prototype, but it shows what might have been, had the Americans not made available B-25s, B-26s and Liberators in such numbers, and had the ddomestically produced Beaforts not been so successful

September 19 1941 saw the first flight of an Australian designed aircraft that contained some interesting and indeed innovative features. The aircraft, officially known as the Wackett bomber, was designated the CAC-CA-4. 
It came about because of a perceived need to replace the Beaufort with an aircraft to meet the immediate needs of RAAF development specification no. 241. This called for an aircraft suitable for reconnaissance and general bombing, with a capability for torpedo delivery and dive bombing. 

Wackett's design was for a low wing, twin engine, light bomber with a crew of three. It featured four forward firing machine guns operated by the pilot, two remote controlled twin machine gun barbettes mounted on the rear of the engine nacelles, engine nacelles that as well as housing the undercarriage, carried two 250 lb bombs. Under the fuselage were mounting points for two torpedoes, (either of which could be replaced by a 293 gallon drop tank) or two 500 lb bombs, with a provision for four 25 lb bombs under each wing. 
The second pilot had his own instrument panel and a demountable control column, and was expected to operate the remote barbettes through the use of a sighting periscope. The third crew member was the bomb aimer/navigator. He was placed in the lower rear fuselage and had a window between his feet as well as triangular windows in the fuselage for navigation. He was also equipped with a free slung machine gun that could be fired from the ventral step. 

The bomber was powered by by two P&W twin wasp R-1830-S3C3-G radials. Six fuel tanks were an integral part of the centre section wing construction, causing headaches for the designers as this had never before been done on an Australian designed machine. The wings were of stressed skin construction, with the control surfaces being fabric covered aft of the spar, and dynamically balanced. The cockpit and nose of the aircraft were metal skinned, and the fuselage was canvas covered ply. 

The initial flight tests showed disappointing response to the controls with the elevator being almost ineffectual, and severe engine overheating. Despite this it was agreed that the aircraft's general handling was on par with contemporary machines. Testing and modifications continued and unexpectedly showed up another feature that Wackett claimed was deliberate, but had never mentioned before. During a flight to show the CA4 to the prime minister and other defence officials, the undercarriage failed and a wheels up landing was made. The machine stopped in 100 yards with no structural damage, and only minor damage to the engines. In fact it was removed from the strip by lifting it onto it's undamaged undercarriage and towing it away. Repairs only took two days, and inspection revealed that the failure had been caused by an act of sabotage. 

April 20 1942 saw the RAAF accept the Wackett bomber for trials. The machine proved capable but had features that were unacceptable to the military, such as the remote aiming and firing system. However in competition with the Beaufort VIII it proved superior in speed, armament, ordinance carrying capacity and range, with similar handling. The Beaufighter came closer, but again lost to armament, load and range. The RAAF was sufficiently impressed with the CA4 to order 105 CA-11 Woomera bombers on March 8 1942. 

Unfortunately the only CA-4 was destroyed when it exploded in flight due to a fault in a feathering switch and a leaking fuel tank on 15 January 1943. 

The Woomera was essentially the same aircraft but it carried all the modifications that had been made to the CA-4, plus some redesign work. The canopy was extended to cover the whole crew area, the tail and rudder was completely redesigned, the deck of the fuselage cut down, and more dihedral put into the outer wing sections. The pilots armament was modified to include two cannon and two machine guns. 

At this time the CAC factory was busily completing Wirraway orders, and the new Boomerang. It had also transpired that the role of twin engined aircraft had changed in the course of the development of the Woomera. The need for dive/torpedo bombers had been passed in favour of heavily armed medium bombers, which the RAAF had available in the form of the Mitchell and Boston. An updated and more powerful version known as CA-11a was mooted, but the idea was abandoned. Add this to the promise of Liberators and the project was doomed. The original order for 105 machines was reduced to 20. However, like the CA-15 the Woomera was to become a "project" rather than a contender. 

This notwithstanding, the first flight of the CA-11 was considered a success. The difficulties in controlling the machine on the ground had gone, as had the lack of feel and control on the elevators and rudder. However the ailerons despite being identical to those on the CA-4 were delightful at flying speed, but decidedly unsatisfactory at low speed. This coupled with a worrying vibration caused the CAC test pilot G.A. Board some worry. Further test flights followed, with most of the problems being quickly rectified, only the vibration and rudder overbalance needing attention. During dive tests a severe vibration was experienced, followed by difficulty in raising the nose due to lack of stick movement. Board flew the aircraft slowly home and eventually had to fly it onto the strip, being unable to lower the tail. Post flight inspection showed that the vibration had caused the elevator trim tab to break and jam the control. 

Sqn. Ldr. Cuming of 1 A.P.U was brought in to give a second opinion as he had flown the CA-4. Board flew chase in a Boomerang and noticed that the tailplane tips were vibrating through an arc of 6 inches, and that the whole of the fuselage rear of the navigators position was vibrating torsionally. This was obviously an aerodynamic problem, but it had not shown up in wind tunnel tests. It was finally traced to the disturbance of airflow caused by the turrets on the rear of the engine nacelles striking the underside of the tailplane, and rectified by giving the tailplane a dihedral of 12 degrees. 

By this stage, the second Woomera was almost complete, only wanting engines, and a further six were partially constructed. Then, in the first week of September 1944, the program was cancelled. Test flights continued for another twelve months, with the test aircraft being converted to components in January 1946.


The general characteristics of the Ca-4 were:

General characteristics
Crew: 3 (pilot, bomb aimer/navigator, rear gunner) 
Length: 39 ft 7 in (12.07 m) 
Wingspan: 59 ft 2½ in (18.05 m) 
Height: 18 ft 2 in (5.53 m) 
Wing area: 440 ft² (40.9 m²) 
Empty weight: 12,756 lb (5,798 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 22,885 lb (10,402 kg) 
Powerplant: 2× Pratt Whitney R-1830-S3C3-G Twin Wasp 14-cylinder two-row radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 282 mph (454 km/h, 245 knots) 
Range: 2,225 mi (3,580 km, 1,934 km) (with external tank and one torpedo) 
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (7,165 m) 
Rate of climb: 2,090 ft/min (10.6 m/s)
Armament
Guns:
2 × .303 machine guns in nose 
2 × 20 mm Hispano cannons in nose 
2 × .303 machine guns in rear firing barbettes 
1 x .303 machine gun in ventral position

Bombs:
4× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs 
2× 500 lb (224 kg) bombs 
2× torpedoes and 4 × 25 lb (13 kg) bombs under wings

I have only one photo


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2011)

I believe the Sentinel tank hull was the largest one piece armor casting in the world at the time. Other tanks that used cast hulls were multi-piece units bolted together. Another sure sign of Australian backwardness


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

Yes, thats correct. I think that would add to hull strength, but you would know better than I SR


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> These backward Australians....I dont know.



Michael you are doing a very poor job of convincing me that Australians were a bunch backward hicks!

Love the CA-15 pictures, some of which I have never seen.

Keep it up, you are doing an excellent job using the shining light of truth to illuminate the darkness of ignorance.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2011)

Id love to see what the other Dominion nationalities designed and/or built. I know that they built Cruiser trank Ram and the turretless APC version of the same. I know they built Blenheims and 12 gun Hurricanes (I think). I know they built 900000 motor vehicles, ships, merchant shipping and lord knows what else. Any of you Canucks out there care to show of your national hardware (somehow that just sounds so wrong doesnt it!!!!!!!)


----------



## ctrian (Jun 25, 2011)

Wow i leave and all hell breaks loose .Parsifal do you get paid by the post?
The question is how much historical production would have to fall if american raw materials , machinery and technology were not available through LL .Like the good prof said in the interview *you linked *the war effort would have to be *SCALED DOWN*.Now what do you think he meant by that? Cryptic statement isn't it ? Do you understand what that means in the middle of a war? Britain would be unable to continue.
Guess he didn't know that you could easily turn the commonwealth into a self sustained autarchic block...in the middle of a war...a war going very badly for Britain....Ask yourself again why your armored forces had 2/3 M4 tanks .It's because the Australians could make tanks

@maltby : i wonder what would happen if i said the same about you i doubt the admin would pretend not to see it.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Wow i leave and all hell breaks loose .Parsifal do you get paid by the post?
> The question is how much historical production would have to fall if american raw materials , machinery and technology were not available through LL .Like the good prof said in the interview *you linked *the war effort would have to be *SCALED DOWN*.Now what do you think he meant by that? Cryptic statement isn't it ? Do you understand what that means in the middle of a war? Britain would be unable to continue.
> Guess he didn't know that you could easily turn the commonwealth into a self sustained autarchic block...in the middle of a war...a war going very badly for Britain....Ask yourself again why your armored forces had 2/3 M4 tanks .It's because the Australians could make tanks



In the first instance I would simply say that is not the object of your original post. Your original position on this was that without Lend Lease Britain was sunk, not that without any US production what would be the outcome. Your about as tricky as a wombat in a burrow arent you. US production cannot be factored out of the global industrial equation. Thats very similar to saying, what would happen to the Axis of Germany was not there. 

The second thing that you tried to say was the Dominions were as cash strapped as Britain. As you now know, but cannot admit, the dominions were anything but like that. Australia, and I will hazard, Canada, and all the other Dominions were resource rich nations, in which the demands for resources in the lead up to war far outstripped supply. These were the days we were getting a pound for a lb of wool, and nobody but Australia could produce top quality merino fleeces. It was the days when Canadian wheat and corn was in massive demand, and all the other resource. So, unless the US was going to disappear off the face of the earth, or we were cut off by blockade from the US, the situation you are describing was never going to happen. 

Now, you are also implying that we were dependant in our immediate war industries for components from the US. Somewhat true, but substantially untrue, especially for defence industries and certainly not a major issue that would at all be unsolvable. Moreover, for non-military items like foodstuffs and the like,m the US was far more dependant on us than we were on them In 1940-44 we were indigenously producing the twin wasp as well as chev motors and a whole lot of other components. In 1942, when our communications to the US were under some threat from the Japanese, the Australians were preparing to build their indigenous fighter forces (and bombers for that matter) completely from home production. So in relaity, in answer to your question about what would happen to our war production if we were threatened with a cutoff from the US, it goes up actually

What you are effectively saying is a nonsense....essentially what would happen if the US didnt exist, or alternatively what would happen if we lost the war and couldnt trade with our overseas partners. Under those circumstance, if everyone else has lost, then of course we have lost.

Incidentally, you are at it again and trying to twist the words of Andrew Clark to suit your own ends. His interview is very clear, without LL there would be a reduction of availble resource to the British military , not a cessation of production altogether. And sorry to burst your bubble but for some items there was a dependance by the US on foreign components and foreign imports as much as any other country.

So, stop trying to shift the goal posts yet again into the realm of the ridiculous. Just so everyone is clear, your position was/is, if Britain did not receive lend lease her production and ability to fight would collapse. You also tried to say that the Dominions were in as bad a financial position as the British. 

And, to further clarify, Clark disagrees that Britiain was bankrupt. he says that were running out of liquid assets, that is not bankrupt. Financial receipt were still coming into the country, the country was still churning out massive amnounts of equipment. Thats not bankrupt, or facing economic ruin at all, its financial strain, which means they cannot buy some of the hardware that they would like (amounting to less than 10% of their total forces in one TO at least...see below) 

As a supplemental to that, you tried to say that in the Middle East the Allied air forces prior to 1941 were made up of about 33% US material. If you go back and have a look at that thread, Ive actually calculated the contribution to June 1941, which is the time frame we were trying to determine (unlike some, I dont shift from the original positions or statements until we are done on that issue). In fact the LL contribution in terms of airpower at least amounted to just over 10%. Given the massive reserves of equipment the UK enjoyed thats going to make no difference at all to their force projection. The same can be said about the other bnits of hardware that you mentioned (tanks etc)


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

Guys some reat stuff there about Australian Canadian and others achievements.

I would like to make four points.

1 In WWII it is impossible to separate the UK from the rest of the commonwealth. For example the key battle in 1940 was the BoB, in that the RAF were lead by Dowding but the key "general" was Air Chief Marshall Keith Park, a New Zealander.

2 A country can fight on providing it can obtain weapons it doesnt have to produce them itself, look at Iran and Iraq for example whos war lasted for years with most of the hardware being made elsewhere.

3 Lend lease was obviously mutual benefit the Battle of the Atlantic was won with hardware and technologies and men from both sides. It is impossible to fight such a battle from one side only. As others have pointed out the battle of the Atlantic wasnt just to solve a British problem, thousands of tons of shipping went down in sight of the American coast.

4 True America provided the Sherman but the USA didnt send over any Mulberry harbours or flexible pipelines which were as key to D Day as the tank itself. It makes more sense to send a tank across the Atlantic than the hundreds of tons of ore needed to build it in Britain.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2011)

Mustang

I couldnt agree more, LL was a pooling of resources, that benefitted both sides, and made both sides stronger. In the shorter term, it benefitted Britain more than it benefitted the US, In the longer terms it was the other way round. I would never deny that viewed from the overall duration, the british benefitted greatly in their war effort by having LL. It was cheaper to use LL equipment in many cases. But that is not the argument that was put, and it continues to rage

The original argument that led to this whole fraccus was that without "US Charity" Britain could not continue to fight and would be forced to surrender. I kid you not. The argument behind this was that by Septemeber 1940, Britain was financially bankrupt and could not continue production without lend lease. Dont ask me to make that comnnection, the argument of the other side is totalky without logic, but they continue with it regardless.

The argumnent was then extended to say that the entire Commonwealth was in the same boat. I have s[ent several pages of this thread, and the other one, showing this to not the case.

Then the argument that was attempted was that the dominions were incapable or lacked the technological base to produce anything. That still remains an element of the argument.

Finally having reached a point of near total fantasy, we are now being told "well what would you do if there was no allied production. Clearly thats a metamorphosis of the original argument. Without any US production, clearly the allies are in a world of hurt, but exactly how trhere would be nbo US production, or how the parameters of the argument all of a sudden could be changed to that have not been explained. Its a moving feast, with no rules, no logic and no evidence '


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 25, 2011)

".... Wow i leave and all hell breaks loose .Parsifal do you get paid by the post?"

Always the smart ass.

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2011)

MM I think I will do as you do.....thats hilarious....just the same answer whilst the same drivel is emerging from the other side


----------



## Readie (Jun 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Mustang
> 
> I couldnt agree more, LL was a pooling of resources, that benefitted both sides, and made both sides stronger. In the shorter term, it benefitted Britain more than it benefitted the US, In the longer terms it was the other way round. I would never deny that viewed from the overall duration, the british benefitted greatly in their war effort by having LL.


 

That is the precise point I have made in the thread. 
That's the whole point of being 'allies'. 
Why ctrian cannot see this is beyond me....

I found this too:
http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/homefront/overview.html

One in all in.

Cheers
John


----------



## Freebird (Jun 25, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Let's continue the discussion here.


 
Continued from where?
Link please? 



ctrian said:


> That is true but what about industrial capacity?
> See how complicated it gets? Especially during a WAR.




medium tanks? (not prototype REAL ones)  Yes. Sentinal tanks were built in Australia using local-built Caddilac engines.
Sentinel tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA guns ? AT guns? Yes. See Parsifal's post above

Trucks? Yes Holden (GM) produced trucks and other items in Australia for the war effort.

Holden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Holden's second full-scale car factory, located in Fishermans Bend (Port Melbourne), was completed in 1936, with construction beginning in 1939 on a new plant in Pagewood, New South Wales.[6] However, World War II delayed car production with efforts shifted to the construction of vehicle bodies, field guns, aircraft and engines



100 octane fuel? Yes* in the Australian _theater_
The Allies in 1940 had 3 major overseas refineries producing 100 octane fuel, in Aruba, Abadan (Persia) and at Palembang Indonesia

Could they build high performance engines? Yes The P W - R-1340 Wasp was built in Australia.

Browsing by theme 'Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) R-1340 Wasp Aero Engine' - Museum Victoria


> In October 1937, the United Aircraft Corporation, which had taken over Pratt Whitney, announced that a licencing agreement had been reached with the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation in Australia for the production of R-1340 engines to be fitted to the CAC Wirraway aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force. The first locally-built engine appeared in January 1939. A total of 680 engines were built by CAC up to 1943



Can they build all the components? Yes




pbfoot said:


> I can't talk for Australia but if you check this out it might surpride you
> 
> Canadian industrial production during the Second World war.



Canada had industries during the war? 
Really? 

I thought they were just a bunch of illiterate fur-trappers....


----------



## Freebird (Jun 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Id love to see what the other Dominion nationalities designed and/or built. I know that they built Cruiser trank Ram and the turretless APC version of the same. I know they built Blenheims and 12 gun Hurricanes (I think). I know they built 900000 motor vehicles, ships, merchant shipping and lord knows what else. Any of you Canucks out there care to show of your national hardware (somehow that just sounds so wrong doesnt it!!!!!!!)


 
Canada also built Hampden bombers, Lancasters and Helldivers, not to mention Anson's, Harvards etc.
They also built the Grizzly tank in 1943, an improved version of the Sherman.

Canada's capacity for tank production _*alone*_ would be enough to supply the entire Commonwealth.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 25, 2011)

freebird said:


> I thought they were just a bunch of illiterate fur-trappers....


 
Ya they were just like those backward hicks downunder.

You guys in the Commonwealth are doing a bang-up job of debunking.

Keep it up, I am really enjoying and learning from your posts!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2011)

freebird said:


> Canada also built Hampden bombers, Lancasters and Helldivers, not to mention Anson's, Harvards etc.
> They also built the Grizzly tank in 1943, an improved version of the Sherman.
> 
> Canada's capacity for tank production _*alone*_ would be enough to supply the entire Commonwealth.



Thank the lord...the cavalry has arrived....youve been sorely missed FB


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2011)

ctrian said:


> @maltby : i wonder what would happen if i said the same about you i doubt the admin would pretend not to see it.


 
Do you have a problem? 

*You are the one that keeps making smart ass comments! You are the first one to make insulting remarks to other members. When they respond to you in the same way, you get all butt hurt and play the "Oh poor me" card.*

1. We treat everyone here the same. If another member of the forum makes smart ass remarks we warn them as well. When a member ignores the warnings they get called out personally. 
2. You are not being treated any differently than anyone here.
3. You are doing a goo job however at singling yourself out. 
4. If you have a problem with the way we run this forum, then please bring it up with us in a PM.

5. Quite the "Oh poor me routine". It is not going to get your anywhere.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 26, 2011)

Huh ? You didn't even make an effort to control them, look either try to keep everyone on the same level or simply ban people who don't agree with you ,you can't have it both ways .YOU are the admin not me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Huh ? You didn't even make an effort to control them, look either try to keep everyone on the same level or simply ban people who don't agree with you ,you can't have it both ways .YOU are the admin not me.


 
I don't ban anyone I don't agree with, just because I don't agree with them. Otherwise you would be gone.

I am warning you because I am sick of your snide comments! My suggestion to you is this:

Quit the comments and debate the topic like an adult. Either that or move on!


----------



## ctrian (Jun 26, 2011)

By the way did you put the avatar pic?


----------



## evangilder (Jun 26, 2011)

I suggest you re-read the ground rules http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/basic/few-ground-rules-new-folks-7159.html
To refresh you memory, number 2 reads:
2. The administrators and moderators run a fairly tight ship. We do let some banter go on for a bit, but when any one of us tells you to settle down, just do it. *Do not pick a fight with any one of them, because they stand pretty united, and you WILL lose.*


----------



## ctrian (Jun 26, 2011)

evangilder said:


> I suggest you re-read the ground rules http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/basic/few-ground-rules-new-folks-7159.html
> To refresh you memory, number 2 reads:
> 2. The administrators and moderators run a fairly tight ship. We do let some banter go on for a bit, but when any one of us tells you to settle down, just do it. *Do not pick a fight with any one of them, because they stand pretty united, and you WILL lose.*


 
That's all well and good but why not answer the question ? Who put the previous pic up ? Did that person behave in a normal way for an adult?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2011)

ctrian said:


> By the way did you put the avatar pic?



What are you talking about?


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2011)

ctrain - How about you answer the question? Who started a thread supposedly about Lend-Lease to Britain and then proceeded to bash diggers and canucks? I can see this thread wasn't started with the best of intentions and if you don't like the responses, there are always other sandboxes.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 26, 2011)

Njaco said:


> ctrain - How about you answer the question? Who started a thread supposedly about Lend-Lease to Britain and then proceeded to bash diggers and canucks? I can see this thread wasn't started with the best of intentions and if you don't like the responses, there are always other sandboxes.


 
I never bashed any canuck or digger whatever they are ,i pointed out that a country rich in raw materials but without heavy industry can't produce modern armaments just like historically happened .I'm not talking about prototypes like the sentinel but about weapons used in large quantities in the field.

*I ask again *who entered a ridiculous pic as my avatar ? When i logged in today someone had done that and i had to upload the one i have now.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 26, 2011)

I don't know who changed your profile pic, and quite frankly, don't give a damn. You started this thread, and whether intentional or not, managed to insult the people of the countries that you felt didn't do anything to support the war effort. Why don't you try reading up on the subject and come with an informed opinion/question rather than looking like an ignorant buffoon. Insulting people when coming from a position of ignorance makes yourself look like an a-hole.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 26, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I never bashed any canuck or digger whatever they are ,i pointed out that a country rich in raw materials but without heavy industry can't produce modern armaments just like historically happened .I'm not talking about prototypes like the sentinel but about weapons used in large quantities in the field.



Again, coming from a position of ignorance. No heavy industry in Canada or Australia? Really? 

How about this?
Canadian industrial production during the Second World war.

11 billion dollars of munitions
1.7 million small arms
43,000 heavy guns
16,000 aircraft
2 million tonnes of explosives
815,000 military vehicles, 50,000 tanks and armoured gun carriers
9,000 boats and ships
Anti-tank and field artillery
Naval guns
Small arms and automatic weapons
Radar sets and Electronics
Synthetic rubber
Uranium for the ’Manhattan Project’


Now STFU and go read a little about a subject before you make yourself look even more ridiculous.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 26, 2011)

evangilder said:


> I don't know who changed your profile pic, and quite frankly, don't give a damn. You started this thread, and whether intentional or not, managed to insult the people of the countries that you felt didn't do anything to support the war effort. Why don't you try reading up on the subject and come with an informed opinion/question rather than looking like an ignorant buffoon. Insulting people when coming from a position of ignorance makes yourself look like an a-hole.


 
The problem is i give a damn.Take your meds and relax you'll hurt your brain


----------



## evangilder (Jun 26, 2011)

I think it's time for you to have some time off. You have 2 weeks for not heeding my advice. Your arrogance is annoying and will not be tolerated. Have a nice vacation.

I changed my mind. That 2 weeks is permanent.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2011)

And that is why you are gone...


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2011)

thankyou. I did not like that guy, his crackpot theories or his continual insults. You can burn me at the stake now if you have to, but i will die a happy man


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 26, 2011)

I think the Mods and Evan Glider demonstrated the patience of Job and the leniency of Christ with Ctrian. Just my two cents.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2011)

parsifal said:


> ...You can burn me at the stake now if you have to, but i will die a happy man


LMAO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2011)

I think I showed a lot of restraint with him...


----------



## Readie (Jun 26, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think I showed a lot of restraint with him...


 
You did Chris. He had a problem.
Good job you mods
Cheers
John


----------



## Freebird (Jun 26, 2011)

evangilder said:


> . We do let some banter go on for a bit, but when any one of us tells you to settle down, just do it.]



Indeed. Let's get back to the topic. 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think I showed a lot of restraint with him...



lol, I just finished typing a detailed rebuttal, and now's he's on vacation. 



parsifal said:


> Thank the lord...the cavalry has arrived....youve been sorely missed FB


 
 Cheers Parsifal. 
Yes, this thread is right in my wheelhouse.
(looking to hit for six.  )



Mustang nut said:


> Guys some reat stuff there about Australian Canadian and others achievements.
> 
> 1 In WWII it is impossible to separate the UK from the rest of the commonwealth. .



Mustang in fact there was no "Canadian Citizenship" before 1946 - we were all "British Subjects"



ctrian said:


> The question is how much historical production would have to fall if *american raw materials , machinery* and technology were not available through LL . *Britain would be unable to continue.*
> Guess he didn't know that you could easily turn the commonwealth into a self sustained autarchic block...in the middle of a war...a war going very badly for Britain



In fact the Commonwealth *was* a "self sustained autarchic block".

War going very badly for Britain? Not exactly.
Badly for France? Yes (And the Czechs, Poles, Dutch, Greeks etc.)

In fact the was was going very well for Germany _on land in the ETO_.
The war was actually going quite well for Britain _in the rest of the world._

Let's take a look at the situation on Jun 30, 1941.
At this point, there is almost nothing supplied under "Lend Lease", the British are still receiving the ships aircraft paid for prior to LL. 

Despite being defeated on the European continent in France, Norway Greece, the rest of the war is not "going badly" for the British.

1.) The only territory lost by Britain are the Channel islands.

2.) They have repulsed the German LW in the BoB.

3.) War at Sea: 
Of the KM's 3 capital ships, none are available. (Tirpitz is still in trials)
Bismarck is sunk, Gneisenau had been badly damaged by RAF bombs a torprdo attack, and is out for the rest of 1941. Scharnhorst is having repair work done, and will be knocked out of action by RAF bombs when she comes back into service. (24 July 1941). Of the rest of surface fleet, about half are sunk or out of action.

The Italians have suffered some solid losses at Taranto Matapan, and are down to about half strength (available)
In addition, the RM is has a critical fuel shortage
Oil Fuel Shortage

On the other side, the RN has lost 2 of 17 battleships, and 9 of 81 RN/RAN cruisers launched 1940 or earlier have been sunk, so about 12% of RN strength in battleships cruisers has been lost.

4.) Desert War
The British inflicted a crushing defeat on the Italians in "Compass", capturing or destroying 400 tanks, 1,300 guns, 1,250 aircraft and taking 115,000 prisoners, for the loss of 500 killed and 15 RAF aircraft destroyed. 
With the arrival of the AfricaKorps the British have been pushed back to the Egyptian/Libyan border, although the Australians still occupy Tobruk (Libya).
Operation Compass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5.) East Africa War
Despite an earlier defeat in British Somaliland, with the defeat of the Italians in the Battle of Keren (27 Mar 1941), the sinking or withdrawl of the Italian Red Sea Flotilla, and the surrender of the Duke of Aosta (18 May 1941), the British have eliminated the Axis threat in East Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Campaign_(World_War_II)

6.) Middle East
Following a pro-Axis revolution in Mesopotamia (Iraq) in thee spring of '41 and the deployment of a Luftwaffe group to the Levant, by July 1941 a combined Commonwealth force (Australian, British Indian) has put down the revolt and ejected the Vichy the Germans from Syria Lebanon.

7.) After the surrender of France, about half of the French empire has defected fromVichy control to the Allies. 

8.) Barbarossa:
The Axis has gone to war with the USSR, swinging the Soviet war machine into action, and cutting off Germaany's oil mineral imports from the USSR.

9.) Battle of the Atlantic:

There is a common misconseption that Britain was on the brink of starvation in 1941 due to the U-boat offensive, and was only saved by the US Lend Lease providing hundreds of Liberty ships. 
In fact the Patrick Henry, first of the Liberty ships, was only launched in 27 Sept 1941, and put into service on 30 Dec 1941.
By mid 1941 the US is only producing about 50,000 tons of shipping/month, while the UK Commonwealth is building about 130,000 per month.

So how was the RN doing in the U-boat war?

Of the 32 long range U-boats (type I, VII IX) in service by Dec 1939, 20 (or 62.5%) were sunk within the first year of the war.

The British started the war with 17,784,000 tons of shipping. (ships of 1,600 tons or more)
30 Sept 1940 that rises to 21,373,000 with the addition of Dutch Norweigian fleets
30 June 1941 the total has fallen to 20,478,000 with U-boat other losses.

However early in the war the RN made ASW a priority, and ordered some 320 additional ASW ships in 1939-1940.
(175 Flower class, 20 Black Swans, 84 Hunt class Escort DDs, 40 more ASW trawlers)

By June 1941 most of the new escort ships are in service, and the RN starts to turn the corner on the U-boat war.

In the 3rd quarter of 1941 the British merchant shipping has *increased* +74,000 tons to 20,552,000 tons.

In the 4th quarter of the year the British shipping tonnage has *increased* again +141,000 tons, to 20,693,000 tons.



War going "very badly"? 
Not really....


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2011)

My last communication with our recently departed member.....from the thread "Best Air force ub 1939-41"

_Originally Posted by ctrian 
That's the point it doesn't have to be 100% to be vital only someone really stupid would think that .LL to the SU was 10-15% of the war effort but it was vital because it covered things that could not/would not be built by the Russians.If the figure is 25% for Britain even you can understand that there can be no room for discussion.Look up 
Liebig's law._


I would never argue that US production was not vital, but this was not your point of claim. your point of claim was/is that the british would have to capitulate without "US charity". The basis of your argument was that Britain was bankrupt, and could not afford to purchase any further equipment from the US. You also claimed that the dominions were also bankrupt, and that they lacked the industrial and technological basis to do anything other than shear some sheep and harvest some corn.

Your argument changed over time, however, initially it was that Britian would collapse if Lend Lease was not put into action from 4/41. Then it changed, to what might happen if the US productive output were removed from the equation. The two propositions are, however, entirely different from each other.

I dont have any problem with agreeing that a 25% reduction in imports would cripple the UK. This could only happen if Britain were actually bankrupt in the modern sense. an example of a nation nearing bankruptcy is greece (no cheap shots, its just a very good example of what a bankrupt state looks like).

Britain in 1941 was nowhere near that. It was running out of cash reserves, which meant it had to secure a line of credit, or find another way to continue the flow of goods from North America. It was nowhere near bankruptcy, as Andrew Clark points out. he is supported in this by the famaus Historian / economist, Overy. I suggest you read him. The British government was running short of liquid assets, but Britain itself was still a net creditor nation. Britain even today is one of the banking and finacial hubs of the world, and has been since the mid 1700s. There were huge investments in overseas pieces of infrastructure that the UK was still receiving cash credits for throughout the war. Britain was still a substantial exporter of goods to the world in 1941. So, whilst they might not be able to purchase quite as much as they would receive as a lend lease assistanc package, they would still continue to receive a portion of that. And, if you look at the amount of aid received, it was not 25% for the duration. It reached a peak in 1944, at around 25%. In 1940, it was 0%, since ther was only cash and carry in 1940. In 1941, it was around 8%, since a portion of the 12% of aircraft received (using aircraft received as a surrogate measure of assistance) were still cash and carry items. In the years of 1942 and 1943, the amount of aid received, as a fraction of the domestic production was about 15% in 1942 and about 20% in 1943. If we disregard the part years of 1939 and 1945, the average amount of lend Lease Aid for the duration was about 13.6% give or take.

If we assume that a cash and carry policy can secure 1/2 what a lend lease arrangement can secure, then the British military hardware availability only drops by about 6% or so.

However, this model does not take into account the response by the dominions. I think it has been pretty well comprehensively shown that the dominions had no real liquidity problems, and had considerable untapped potential in their respective economies. They had the technological basis, the industrial capabilty to increase domestic production considerably. They also had considerable ability to increase their share of foreign purcahses (ie direct cash and carry purchases from the US) to make up the shortfall in place of the UK. faced with a decreased level of support from the US, as a result of the non-signing of the LL agreement, I think it entirely likley that the Dominions would either increse their direct purchases from the US, or increase domestic production, or a mixture of both

And finally, of course, any unused output not taken up by either the dominions or the UK is going to be absorbed and used domestically by the US. This would mean, almost certainly, that the US would be able to mobilise faster and get into the war quicker than she did historically 

So, my opinion is that whilst Lend Lease was a good efficiency and mutual assistance package with the US, it cannot at all be argued that it would lead to a collapse, or even a reduction in operational; strengths or capabilities by the allies, or britain, or any other cockeyed permutation that you would care to serve up. 

lastly, your argument that the US was fulfilling a "niche market" in the materiel it was supplying is a nonsense also. If anything the "niche markets" in military outputs were being filled by the British and the dominions. The US could mass produce the main items of hardware in greater volume and more cheaply that anybody, which explains why Australia did not produce more sentinels and why the majority of tanks in the british army in 1944 were of American manufacture. It makes a lot of sense to standarise, and who better to standardise with than th tank most easily produced and the most numerous. The same logic could be applied across the whole range of miltary purchases. But The US was not especially important for supplying specialist equipment...perhaps in the case of the Soviet Union to a very limited extent, but only to an extremely minor extent for US's western allies.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2011)

One last comment. To all those people who sent me various messages of support and PMs agreeing with my stand against this guy, it was really appeciated. You are a great bunch of guys. Thanks


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 26, 2011)

I think one of the key issues in late-1940 thru early 1941 was that the US (and to a lesser extent Canada) had an established manufacturing base whereas that of Australia was developing, albeit rapidly. Looking from the perspective of 1940, going straight to an existing source rather than expending funds to build up an emergent capability makes logical sense. 

One must also remember the political aspect - Churchill was willing to employ pretty much any tactic to draw the US closer into the war on the side of the Commonwealth. In that context, Lend Lease was a major victory for his political strategy. 

That said, I'm grateful for the Canadian and Aussie posts - I was somewhat in the dark concerning the industrial contributions of the Commonwealth nations, which suggests it's another area of forgotten WWII history.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 26, 2011)

I hate to see nationalism get in the way of facts. No single country could have defeated the axis. It was a team effort and everyone contributed. 

I have no problem if someone asks about something they don't know about. I do have a problem with folks that come from a position of complete ignorance, get shown the facts and still refute them. It's not real hard to swallow your pride and admit you're wrong, or acknowledge that you might have learned something. I learn something here a lot. And questions get raised that lead to finding out more info through research and reading.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 26, 2011)

Entirely agree, Evanglider. How often we forget just how big the team was that defeated the Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini - Poles, Czechs, French, Dutch, Danes, Belgians, Norwegians, Greeks, and many others (and not forgetting the internal opposition and resistance movements) in addition to the main powers of the US and the British Commonwealth.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2011)

The issue was more primeval than that. he hated being shown any evidence of allied competence or success. You know the type.

I know i am a little one eyed in terms of the allies winning. But there is a difference between having a bias, and having a prejudice. this guy was prejuduced, he came here with the objective of bad mouthing anythin favourable to the allies, and was quite prpred to insult anyone, say anything and ignore cold reality to achieve that objective. 

Trouble for him is, ther are people here who direct links back to that terrible war, are proud of their national heritage, and just wont say die when people start to put down the people and values that their country's stand for. I know that sounds trite and precious, but its the truth


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2011)

Back on topic (somewhat) - I was surprised to learn that the US really put its effort into Lend-Lease only after Britain showed it was worth it after the BoB.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 26, 2011)

Njaco,

I think you're picking up on the wrong cues. By the time of Lend Lease, the BoB was well and truly finished and we were well into the challenges of 1941. The key issue was the British Commonwealth was standing alone without any European allies against Facist-run Germany and Italy, two of the largest militaries in the world. Japan was also becoming increasingly vocal. The military was effectively leading Japan's drive towards further expansionism in the Far East, and saw as easy targets the rump colonies of the European powers that had been overrun by German armed might. The only powers who could stop Japan were Britain and America. Without Britain, America had to do it all alone, which simply wasn't conceivable. When it became apparent that British gold reserves were running out, making it difficult for her to continue buying US armaments, the options were to leave Britain hanging out to dry or to find some way of helping. Lend Lease was the implementation of the latter approach.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2011)

I might be. I remember reading that close to the end of BoB Roosevelt was more than convinced that the US should do all we could for the UK.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 26, 2011)

Undoubtedly true. The dawning realisation in America that the negativity of Mr Kennedy was somewhat misplaced undoubtedly helped bring the US and UK closer.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 27, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Undoubtedly true. The dawning realisation in America that the negativity of Mr Kennedy was somewhat misplaced undoubtedly helped bring the US and UK closer.


 
I think there were many sides to it. Britain was doing better than many predicted and it was becoming more obvious thet Germany would attack the Soviet Union and not clear who would win. If the Soviets capitualted as many thought they would it would leave the whole world in a very bad place.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 27, 2011)

Very interesting discussion guys. For those interested in the Australian side of things, I recommend having a read through the Official History here.
Australia in the War of 1939


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2011)

That is very intersting Wildcat. I wish you had been around a couple of days ago. This stuff was sorely needed. The chapter dealing with the Australian Tank development was particulalry intersting for me. It shows how Australia went from nothing to some of the most advanced heavy engineering projects we have ever attempted ever. I doubt we could adapt our current industries to build AFVs of any kind in the way they were in 1940-41. I like the bit in Chapter 14 where the hull fabrication plant at Kendal is described as the most advanced of its kind in the Commonwealth

Its a great read for anyone interested. I highly recommend havbing alook at Wildcats attachments (that is just sooo wrong)


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 27, 2011)

Sorry I missed the dance ..... Ctrain is a political operator. Good riddance.

Some Canadian Lend Lease - and Reverse Lend Lease to the USA  :

- Toronto built Lancaster and Mosquito
- US Mosquito Toronto
- US Navy Flower Class corvette (Collingwood, Ontario-built)
- Toronto (Inglis-appliance-built) bren guns
- Long Branch built Sten
- CMP (Canadian Military Pattern) truck (GM and Ford)
- deserted CMP artillery tractor today (Yukon - used as log skidders)
- modified Chevy for the LRDG in N. Africa
- Valentine tanks from Montreal locomotive works for Russia - november 1941 (USA isn't a war yet)
- and ....  an interesting pdf file on Montreal RAM tank manufacturing.

Go Commonwealth .....

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> Sorry I missed the dance ..... Ctrain is a political operator. Good riddance.
> 
> Some Canadian Lend Lease - and Reverse Lend Lease to the USA  :
> 
> ...



Our recently departed friend made much of the british dependance on Shermans and Grants in North Africa. 

Could the RAM have acted as a substitute for these Tanks, and could output of RAMs and the Valentines have been increased fo you think.

I also thought that the Valentine could be fitted with a US style 75mm gun, similar to the Shermans. Any truth to that Mike?


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 27, 2011)

There has been some great stuff posted here, Ive certainly learned a lot. Thanks


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 27, 2011)

".... Could the RAM have acted as a substitute for these Tanks, and could output of RAMs and the Valentines have been increased fo you think.

I also thought that the Valentine could be fitted with a US style 75mm gun, similar to the Shermans. Any truth to that Mike?"

I am going to pass on answering that Parsifal because I just don't know. The tanks were built by locomotive works (geared for both production and overhauls) so they may NOT have been as upwardly 'scaleable' as Ford, GM or Chrysler . But the Soviets liked the Canadian Valentines and lots of RAM's were used - including the Kangaroo RAM (a turret-less APC used by Canadian General Guy Simmons for the nighttime assault on Verriers Ridge attacking Caen

I left off my list Hurricanes .... build in Fort William Ontario (Thunder Bay now) by Canada Car and Foundry, under the guidance of Elsie McGill - a remarkable woman  - fired by Curtis after the HellDiver started production in Ft W). And lots of PBY Canso's built by Boeing Canada in Montreal (and Vancouver).

MM


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 27, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Undoubtedly true. The dawning realisation in America that the negativity of Mr Kennedy was somewhat misplaced undoubtedly helped bring the US and UK closer.


 
My opinion is you are being charitable with the use of the word "negativity" to describe Joseph Kennedy's outright bigotry tainted evaluation of the British. It is interesting how much that his son John differed from him.

I can't adequately express how great it has been reading all the illuminatingly detailed posts on the realities of lend-lease far beyond what I had based my agreeing opinion on. In someways I think I owe a thank you to Ctrian just for making it all happen. How ironic


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 27, 2011)

".... I think I owe a thank you to Ctrian just for making it all happen. How ironic ..."

For sure ..... it's a great topic.

MM


----------



## Njaco (Jun 27, 2011)

Didn't Ford or GM have a plant in Canada that produced some of the Jeeps or 2 1/2 ton trucks?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2011)

Everyone Ctrian is no longer here, that means there is no need to talk about him either. Move along now...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 27, 2011)

No souvenir buttons off his tunic, Sarge  ......?

MM


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 27, 2011)

Sorry about the faux pas Adler. It was an innocently made comment. Will not happen again.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 28, 2011)

".... Didn't Ford or GM have a plant in Canada that produced some of the Jeeps or 2 1/2 ton trucks?"

Don't think so Njaco, . The famous deuce-and-a-half trucks were US-made: GM, Studebaker, International, etc. The Canadian trucks were right-hand drive and built to Commonwealth (not North American) standards. In Canada, Chrysler built a 3/4 ton 4x4 that was called (in the US) a weapons carrier and was also widely used as an ambulance. More important possibly, Chrysler built truck body workshops totally equipped with lathes or whatever, these bodies with tools could just be dropped onto the frame of the CMP tandems built by Ford or GM and were supplied to the Commonwealth and to the Soviets (via Iran). Civilian-style Dodge trucks were also made by Dodge (Fargo) in Canada. Ford made jeeps but I can't confirm that any were made by Ford Canada. 

I read yesterday that by the Battle of El Alamein in 1941 virtually 80% of Commonwealth transport in North Africa was made in Canada.

Ford Canada (and US) also made tracked Bren Gun carriers (Universal Carrier) by the 1,000's.

Cheers,

MM


----------



## Freebird (Jun 28, 2011)

ctrian said:


> *The question is how much historical production would have to fall if american raw materials , machinery and technology were not available through LL*. Do you understand what that means in the middle of a war?
> *Britain would be unable to continue.*
> Guess he didn't know that you could easily turn the commonwealth into a self sustained autarchic block...in the middle of a war....





parsifal said:


> The context of this question was whether the Dominions had the capacity to pay cash for US armaments. As it turned out,* it was cheaper and more efficient to use US equipment to win the war*, than embark on a program of greater home production.


 


parsifal said:


> . Your original position on this was that without Lend Lease Britain was sunk, not that without any US production what would be the outcome. US production cannot be factored out of the global industrial equation.
> 
> So, unless the US was going to disappear off the face of the earth, or we were cut off by blockade from the US, the situation you are describing was never going to happen.
> 
> Now, you are also implying that we were dependant in our immediate war industries for components from the US. So in relaity, in answer to your question about what would happen to our war production if we were threatened with a cutoff from the US, it goes up actually


 


parsifal said:


> I would never deny that viewed from the overall duration, the british benefitted greatly in their war effort by having LL. It was cheaper to use LL equipment in many cases.
> The original argument that led to this whole fraccus was that without "US Charity" Britain could not continue to fight and would be forced to surrender.
> 
> we are asked "well what would you do if there was no allied production. *Without any US production, clearly the allies are in a world of hurt, but exactly how there would be no US production, or how the parameters of the argument all of a sudden could be changed to that have not been explained.* '




Well I'll put forward the parameters to clarify the discussion, if there is no objection? 


Here's how it might occur.
On Nov 5 of 1940 FDR loses the election and control of Congress to the isolationists led by Senator Nye the "America First" committee.

The incoming group promises to re-introduce strict neutrality laws, to "avoid entanglements in foreign wars".

* No armaments, ammunition, warships, aircraft or fuel may be sold to either side
* No loans of any kind may be made
* No American vessel may transport any soldiers or war materials for a belligerent
* US vessels may not carry passengers or materials of any kind into a war zone.
* Allied Axis warships or ships carrying arms or ammunition may not transit Panama
* The draft legislation of Oct 1940 is immediately repealed
* No further armaments contracts for the USN or USAF will be approved

They promise to introduce the legislation on Jan 1 1941, when they take office.
No contracts to produce war material may be entered after that time.
Any materials already paid for must leave by Mar 1, 1941, at which time export will be prohibited.



So the question is, how would the Commonwealth react, and how would things change.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 28, 2011)

Senator Nye and the America First committee's legislation takes effect - January 1, 1941 - but American companies in Germany (and occupied France) are building trucks for the Nazis and GM and Ford Canada (as subsidiaries of US companies) are allowed by Congress to continue their activities in Canada and Australia (Holden).

In December, 1940 Canadian war production isn't even at full stride yet - and with the exception of the Packard Merlin, nothing Canada is building is to US specifications - all is focused on Commonweath standards - .303 calibre rifles and MG's - Hurricanes, Ansons, Lysanders - Lancs and Mosquitos to follow in 1941.

But Senator Nye's legislation is overtaken in 11 months by Pearl Harbour (December 7, 1941) and Hilter declares war on the USA (per historical record). No neutrality for the US. Britain and the Commonwealth are very little affected by America's 11 months of neutrality and the USA is slower ramping up wartime production than it was in the real world scenario. Atomic Bomb isn't delivered to Japan until January, 
1946. 

MM


----------



## Freebird (Jun 28, 2011)

> how much historical production would have to fall if no american raw materials



OK, first up - *Raw materials*.


In 1941 the British, Dutch Allies (non US!) was almost entirely self sufficient, and held close to a monopoly on several commodities such as rubber, tin, nickel, cocao etc.

The British Commonwealth was not a primary producer in Potash, Sulfer or Molybdenum, although significant amounts of the latter two were obtained through secondary extration during petroleum refining and copper/tungsten ore processing.

Germany was a world leader in Potash export (used for fertilizer etc) from mineral salt deposits. The Commonwealth would have to go back to the older method of producing Potash through burning wood.
(Now if we can only think of a Commonwealth country with lots of trees  ) 


Figures taken from the ww2total chart.
"British Empire" also includes Dutch, Belgian Free French assets.
Strategic raw materials and oil production, Second World War


----------



## Freebird (Jun 28, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> Senator Nye and the America First committee's legislation takes effect - January 1, 1941 - but American companies in Germany (and occupied France) are building trucks for the Nazis


 correct



> and GM and Ford Canada (as subsidiaries of US companies) are allowed by Congress to continue their activities in Canada and Australia (Holden).



US Congress has no control over anything produced in Canada. 





> But Senator Nye's legislation is overtaken in 11 months by Pearl Harbour (December 7, 1941) and Hilter declares war on the USA (per historical record). No neutrality for the US. Britain and the Commonwealth are very little affected by America's 11 months of neutrality and the USA is slower ramping up wartime production than it was in the real world scenario.



Nope! No Pearl Harbour, and no Japanese attack. 

Let's put this one to rest right now.
Japan' leadership agreed to go to war with the allies O*NLY* as a last resort if they couldn't get Dutch British oil ( raw materials.)

Britiain Netherlands *only* agreed to impose the embargo as requested by the US, because FDR guaranteed US support in event of war.

While the very attractive Madame Chiang came to America to bat her eyes drum up US support for China, she held no appeal to Churchill (unless she was bringing him a bottle of brandy  )

Britain had no interest in helping China, as they had some ongoing border disagreements in Asia (Nepal, Burma, Hong Kong etc)
(They had in fact closed down the Burma road during the summer/fall of 1940 at the request of Japan)

Frankly, for the Commonwealth having Japan China engaged in a protracted, mutually destructive war is probably the most desirable outcome.

Churchill will quite happily "throw China under the bus" without batting an eye.

So the Anglo-Dutch will sell oil supplies from Malaya/DEI to Japan, allowing them to concentrate on their conquest of China.

No embargo = no Pacific war in 1941 or 1942.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 28, 2011)

Developed into a very informative thread. Many thanks.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 28, 2011)

freebird said:


> Britain had no interest in helping China



Sorry, Freebird, but that's not correct. Even through the end of 1941, the UK provided more financial support to the Chinese Nationalists than any other country, including the US. I have a source for this but can't get to it until next week. 



freebird said:


> Frankly, for the Commonwealth having Japan China engaged in a protracted, mutually destructive war is probably the most desirable outcome.



I will entirely agree with the above statement.



freebird said:


> Churchill will quite happily "throw China under the bus" without batting an eye.
> 
> So the Anglo-Dutch will sell oil supplies from Malaya/DEI to Japan, allowing them to concentrate on their conquest of China.
> 
> No embargo = no Pacific war in 1941 or 1942.



If US policy became totally isolationist, then that would likely also extend to not exporting fuel and vital raw materials to other combatants, to include China and Japan. The net result would have been no US support for China but, equally, no fuel or iron ore for Japan which would inevitably have led Japan towards the "Southern Advance". Under those conditions, I don't see the British Commonwealth collaborating with the Dutch to sell vital raw materials to the country that may be attacking the allies' interests.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2011)

My figures for production of strategic materials are different , will post up some statistics tonite, but show British empire output of certain strategic materials as considerably higher....particulalry iron and steel outputs.

One area that I dont agree with is that Japan would not enter the war. They entered the war, because they were being denied exports, and access to liquid assets. The only way they might stay out, but still unlikley, was if the british empire ignored the trade embargoes and continued to sell oil to the Japanese. But I doubt that would change anything. Australia continued to sell large amounts of iron ore to the Japanese right up until the outbreak of hostilities, and all they did was shoot it back at us ("pig iron Bob" a reference to premier Menzies sale of this material to an unfiendly nation) 

If there was no Lend Lease, and the US withdraws from world markets in so many areas, then I predict many nations would increase their mobilzation arrangements to make up the shortfall. And Britains share of world export trade increases, instead oif the world driving around in Chevs and Cadillacs, they would buy Morris and Austins. With better acces to world markets, Britain cash flow issues improve.

However, without access to even cash and carry, not only woulf US balance of payments take a big hit, as their exports shrink to almost nothing, but Allied war production is also going to take a hit as well. Whilst I do not believe Britain would collapse...in fact I think they would do better in some respects....an atmosphere of non-co-operation is a bad thing for everyone. There would be no Tizard commission, no rapid mobilzation of US industries. What US production there was would be poured into domestic needs, which makes the US stronger at wars outbreak, but slower to take off in 1942.

In the crucial area of nuclear research, US progress gets held back by at least a year, as Britain witholds its knowledge (part of the tizard commission). Whilst the allies develop centimetric radars, and develop VT fuses, US development is left behind. Ther is no marriage of the Merlin to the P-51, or at least it is delayed. These are just some of the more obvious consequences. 

In Austtralia we would not be abale to import any engines from the US, but we could, I think increase our home production of engines built under licence. If not there would be a delay of about 3-6 months as we converted those factories to the production of British engines....nbot as good (sorry guys) but with tight centraloized govt control inecitable. One thing that wouldnt happen, is that output would be allowed to suffer. We would find a way, of that I am sure.

There would unquestionably be dislocation for the allies caused by the non-signing of Lend Lease. I dont see Churchill allowing this to stand for too long, and I dont see it remaining popular in the US for too long as their military development, and standards of living begin to take a hit by their withdrawal from the world. As the Germans extend their operational areas, and the US starts to take losses in the Atlantic, unpoularity of the policy would, I think develop into outright revolt. I would think that by November 1941, isolationism would have had its day, but that probably measns the war is extended to some time in 1946


----------



## Njaco (Jun 28, 2011)

I agree with Buffnut. If things went as supposed, I can't see an American public agree to continue to ship supplies to an aggressor like Japan and not someone like the UK. Don't think it would last long.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 28, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Sorry, Freebird, but that's not correct. Even through the end of 1941, the UK provided more financial support to the Chinese Nationalists than any other country, including the US. I have a source for this but can't get to it until next week.



I'll be interested to see that. I would suspect that this was mostly in the second half of 1941 after Lend-Lease was passed, when the US FDR taking the lead against Japanese aggression. 
I certainly can't see them extending much help from July - Oct 1940 after they've shut down the Burma road.
Nor will financial help do much good at the beginning of 1941, without the ability to buy US armaments. 




> If US policy became totally isolationist, then that would likely also extend to not exporting fuel and vital raw materials to other combatants, to include China and Japan. The net result would have been no US support for China but, equally, no fuel or iron ore for Japan which would inevitably have led Japan towards the "Southern Advance". Under those conditions, I don't see the British Commonwealth collaborating with the Dutch to sell vital raw materials to the country that may be attacking the allies' interests.



I can't see the UK trying to "go it alone" with an embargo against Japan in the beginning of 1941, especially as the UK is opposed by a Nazi-Soviet alliance. 
An arms embargo would also hurt China more than Japan.
Nor can I see an oil embargo being effective without US leadership, as Japan can still buy oil on the open market (from Mexico or Venezuela)


----------



## Freebird (Jun 28, 2011)

Njaco said:


> I agree with Buffnut. If things went as supposed, I can't see an American public agree to continue to ship supplies to an aggressor like Japan and not someone like the UK. Don't think it would last long.



No, the US (in Jan 1941 in this hypothetical) would go back to the neutrality act of 1939, no arms for any combatant nation.
The situation *would* indeed be likely to end - in Nov 1942 - as the neutrality act kills the economic recovery, while other nations economies ar boosted.



parsifal said:


> One area that I dont agree with is that Japan would not enter the war. They entered the war, because they were being denied exports, and access to liquid assets.



Remember, that was only after July 1941.
The US might refuse to sell oil if it was determined to be a "war material", but there was no provision in the neutrality acts to freeze assets



> The only way they might stay out, but still unlikley, was if the british empire ignored the trade embargoes and continued to sell oil to the Japanese.



There is no trade embargo - the us just stops selling arms to china and oil to japan.
Remember that in 1937 Japan got about 80% of it's oil from the US. Oil prices were also at an all -time low, down to 15 or 20 cents a barrell IIRC
But by 1940 FDR had put pressure on US suppliers not to sell to Japan - who now got about 60% from other countries.
I believe that Britain the Dutch had continued selling oil to Japan until July 1941.



> But I doubt that would change anything. Australia continued to sell large amounts of iron ore to the Japanese right up until the outbreak of hostilities, and all they did was shoot it back at us ("pig iron Bob" a reference to premier Menzies sale of this material to an unfiendly nation)



The records of the Imperial Japanese conference in Sept 1941 show very clearly that they were prepared to cancel hostilities as late as Nov 1941 - provided they got oil.




> If there was no Lend Lease, and the US withdraws from world markets in so many areas, then I predict many nations would increase their mobilzation arrangements to make up the shortfall. And Britains share of world export trade increases, instead oif the world driving around in Chevs and Cadillacs, they would buy Morris and Austins. With better acces to world markets, Britain cash flow issues improve.
> 
> However, without access to even cash and carry, not only woulf US balance of payments take a big hit, as their exports shrink to almost nothing, but Allied war production is also going to take a hit as well. Whilst I do not believe Britain would collapse...in fact I think they would do better in some respects....an atmosphere of non-co-operation is a bad thing for everyone. What US production there was would be poured into domestic needs, which makes the US stronger at wars outbreak, but slower to take off in 1942.



Indeed you are correct, the wartime boom would boost other countries, not the US.




> There would be no Tizard commission, no rapid mobilzation of US industries.
> In the crucial area of nuclear research, US progress gets held back by at least a year, as Britain witholds its knowledge (part of the tizard commission). Whilst the allies develop centimetric radars, and develop VT fuses, US development is left behind.



Ah, no the mission was in Sept-Oct 1940, so Britain has already given away the magnetron other goodies - for nothing. 




> Ther is no marriage of the Merlin to the P-51, or at least it is delayed.



Not by the _USA_ at least. 



> In Austtralia we would not be abale to import any engines from the US, but we could, I think increase our home production of engines built under licence. If not there would be a delay of about 3-6 months as we converted those factories to the production of British engines....



No restrictions on Commonwealth use of US designs, but no new tech could be shared (IMO)


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 28, 2011)

".... No restrictions on Commonwealth use of US designs, but no new tech could be shared (IMO)"



MM


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 29, 2011)

freebird said:


> Well I'll put forward the parameters to clarify the discussion, if there is no objection?
> 
> 
> Here's how it might occur.
> ...


 
Britain immediately follows Lloyd georges suggestion that they use the BoB to make peace with Germany.

Churchill is replaced for his pro American stance + handing technology to America for no return.

Britain enters the axis and supports germanys invasion of the soviet union with airpower and oil.
All technology given to America is given to Germany and Japan.
The new allies focus on the A bomb rocket and jet research.
Japan is given a free hand in China and support.
Canada joins the axis as America not ramping up arms procurement causes recession and vulnerability.
British German and Italian submarines and surface fleets assist Japan at Pearl harbour to protect axis sphere from Nuclear threat.
Britain Gets Africa and Middle east and India
Germany Gets Europe and Soviet union up to China 
Japan gets China and eastern soviet union pacific rim.

new dark age commences.

I am not being serious at all, but some people did want to use the BoB to make peace with Adolf.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2011)

strains of that book "SS GB"


----------



## Freebird (Jun 30, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... No restrictions on Commonwealth use of US designs, but no new tech could be shared (IMO)"
> 
> 
> 
> MM



They don't really have any choice.
Pratt Whitney Canada produces engines for CW aircraft.
Fairchild Canada is making Hampden bombers.
Boeing Canada spent million in 1938 to build a new factory.
Fleet Aircraft (Consolidated) is building trainers.


If the US Congress told them to close down Britain would just expropriate the factories. 

The US armaments industry is already howling mad, as Congress is about to kill hundreds of millions dollars of contracts.
At least they will be earning some decent royalties from the Canadian subsidiaries operations. 

No carry = no cash. 




> Britain immediately follows Lloyd georges suggestion that they use the BoB to make peace with Germany.
> 
> Churchill is replaced for his pro American stance + handing technology to America for no return.
> 
> ...



At this point it's a bit too late for that.
We could make some kind of deal with Germany, but *we will not *surrender to the Italians! 
At this point, peace would be at very poor terms, would probably involve surrendering territory to the Vichy, and ceding British Somaliland to Italy.

And to be fair, Churchill was against the Tizard "giveaways" without asking for anything in return, however the details wouldn't be made public anyways.


I think everyone here needs to take a step back (into 1940  ) and look at it from that POV
That news item is not nearly as huge in Nov 1940 as it is to us *sitting here in 2011*.
Remember, in 1940 the US wasn't thought of as a world superpower, it didn't have a huge army, air force, or shipping fleet, and was still in economic doldrums.
It would undoubtedly be a big disappointment for Churchill, but the UK has many other options.

The British need for aircraft is not as urgent as the French were earlier in the year, as the UK (under Beaverbrook's direction) have seen a drastic increase in production, and have the winter to build up.

The US has also changed it's position multiple times, so the UK might assume that it wasn't set in stone for more than a year or two.

1.) The 1935/1936 Neutrality forbade arms sales or loans to belligerents 
2.) However the 1937 act allowed "Cash Carry" 
3.) The 1939 version eliminated the "Cash Carry" option 
4.) Nov 1939 the Cash Carry provision was put back in. 
5.) Finally in Mar 1941 the whole thing was cancelled. 

This isn't going to be front page news to the British public, it only means that orders for aircraft etc delivered in a year or so later will go elsewhere.


So what are the "Times" headlines in Nov 1940, say from 6 - 12 November?

1.) The destruction in London during the "Blitz" continues, Nov is one of the heaviest months

2.) The British Mediterranean fleet delivers a crushing blow to the Regia Marina, at Taranto. (Nov 11/12)

3.) Western Desert Force stops the Italian advance, and both sides dig in.

4.) After a sharp repulse in the "Battle of Dakar" in Sept, the Free French turn the tables, the Vichy loses control of central Africa in the "Battle of Gabon"

5.) Battle of the Atlantic continues, U-boats adopt "wolf pack" tactics and maul several convoys.

6.) German raiders on the loose - Adm. Scheer sinks 5 merchants and the "Jervis Bay"

7.) Canadian 2nd division arrives in the UK

8.) Skirmishing continues in East Africa, British ANZAC naval forces repulse Italian DD sub attacks on the convoys in the Red Sea.

9.) Winter gales in the channel, the immediate threat of a German invasion is passed


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 1, 2011)

I think that's a very thorough analysis, Freebird. I agree that you have to see it in the context of the times.

MM


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 1, 2011)

freebird said:


> At this point it's a bit too late for that.


 
on 28 August 1940 Lloyd George drafted a memorandum advocating peace negotiations with Germanyusing the reprieve won by the RAF as a means to get better terms.

As you said you must look at the actual situation at the time which changed day by day.

Britain had the choice of joining Hitler, surrender a negotiated peace or continued beligerance. I dont think anyone considered the former but the next two were possibilities depending how you viewed the battle of the Atlantic etc.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 1, 2011)

It took a few days for me to consider the implications of this scenario. Though not apparent its fundamentally different from Ctrians theory. Ctrian was basically arguing that Britain could not survive without Lend Lease, and (by extension) that the US was the sole source of military production that made any difference to the allied fortunes. Clearly I do not agree with that basic position.

What this hypothetical is asking, is what would happen if the Len Lease Act were not enacted. By extension, I suppose we also need to spend some time on what would happen if the US remained neutral, and Japan also did not enter the war. By extension from that, was Britain, the Commonwealth and the USSR alone capable of defeating Nazi Germany???

Leaving aside the Russians for a minute, whilst I would argue until the cows came home that Britain had the capacity to survive indefinately from Germany, she did not have the means to defeat her. Puyt as eloquently as I can, Britain was the instrument of Allied survival, but the US was the instrument of victory. Without the US onboard, there could be no thought of defeating the Germans. 

The Soviets are a whole other kettle of fish. Very difficult to determine if they could beat the Germans more or less on their own. They could call on their far eastern armies to a much greater extent, and the British are far more likley to send their armies to the East, for direct co-operation, since the possibility of a second front in Normandy would recede rapidly without American help. A strong possibility would be landings in Italy by a wholly British/CW force. Further , with no Far eastern threat, close to 48 additional Divs are potentially available to the Allies, roughly 25 Indian, 4 East and West African, 1 or 2 Burmese, 1-2 Malayan, about 10 or so Australian, 2 British, and 3 NZ. This might lead to possibilities in the Balkans.

The problem is, the germans are also going to be stronger, and the Allied formations will be susceptible to manpower losses. They may be able to keep the germans busy, essentially, whilst the Russian overrun Europe.

So my gut feeeling from this is that the Russians will come out of this as the sole power in control of Europe. Britain will not be happy about that. They will have exchanged one form of European tyrrany with another.....


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 2, 2011)

parsifal said:


> So my gut feeeling from this is that the Russians will come out of this as the sole power in control of Europe. Britain will not be happy about that. They will have exchanged one form of European tyrrany with another.....


 
Thats a strong possibility but its also possible that without lend lease the Eastern front could drag on for years ending in a stalemate like Iran Iraq. If the US doesnt re arm I think Japan would eventually get china and Pearl Harbour would still happen. Military regimes tend to keep expanding until they are stopped.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2011)

Something to look at is steel production. Germany was a very distant second in steel production but it still, after 1941, could out produce Britain, Canada and the Soviet Union put together although not by much. After the German 1941 advances Russian Steel production dropped to 1/3-1/4 of German Steel production. If the British are not fighting the Russians are going to run out of material at some point. 

The US was the real game changer. US steel production was as much or more than the rest of the Allies *AND* the Axis put together.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 2, 2011)

I think a protracted stalemate is a likely scenario with a possibility of an eventual Russian European Hegemony. This of course flies right out the window if any of the belligerents develop the ability make and delivery nuclear weapons significantly faster than the others. The question is who would do this significantly sooner. My bet is the British would be first to have the capability because all the european physicists that came to America would be inclined to aid the U.K. The problem is the U.S.S.R. had an excellent espionage system in Britain and would probably develop the Bomb even faster than they did with the aid of espionage in the U.S. The Russians may have gotten there fast enough to make it insignificant as to who got there first.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 2, 2011)

freebird said:


> I'll be interested to see that. I would suspect that this was mostly in the second half of 1941 after Lend-Lease was passed, when the US FDR taking the lead against Japanese aggression.
> I certainly can't see them extending much help from July - Oct 1940 after they've shut down the Burma road.
> Nor will financial help do much good at the beginning of 1941, without the ability to buy US armaments.



Freebird,

British financial contributions to China are discussed in a 1991 essay by Philip Richardson '"Plucking the China Brand from the Burning": Britain’s Economic Assistance to China and Sir Otto Niemeyer’s Mission, 1941-42’, China Quarterly No. 125, pp. 86-108. I made a mistake in my original statement - British financial aid outstripped all others, including the US, through the end of 1940. One addition, however, was that the UK-based loans were made on far more favourable terms than those of the US.

KR
Mark


----------



## Freebird (Jul 2, 2011)

[


parsifal said:


> It took a few days for me to consider the implications of this scenario. Though not apparent its fundamentally different from Ctrians theory. Ctrian was basically arguing that Britain could not survive without Lend Lease, and (by extension) that the US was the sole source of military production that made any difference to the allied fortunes. Clearly I do not agree with that basic position.



Parsifal, I'm very much agreed with almost all of your post



Parsifal said:


> I would argue until the cows came home that Britain had the capacity to survive indefinately from Germany, she did not have the means to defeat her. Put as eloquently as I can, Britain was the instrument of Allied survival, but the US was the instrument of victory. *Without the US onboard, there could be no thought of defeating the Germans*.





Mustang nut said:


> Thats a strong possibility but its also possible that without lend lease the Eastern front could drag on for years ending in a stalemate like Iran Iraq..



There are actually quite a few "endgame" possibilities, but the UK would be hard pressed to avoid a Nazi or Soviet domination of Europe. Don't forget the US may well change course again after the Nov 1942 congressional elections.  

But let's take this one step at a time


Parsifal said:


> What this hypothetical is asking, is what would happen if the Len Lease Act were not enacted. By extension, I suppose we also need to spend some time on what would happen if the US remained neutral, and Japan also did not enter the war.



Indeed, let's concentrate on 1940/1941 *before* we move on to the later years.

Lets deal with these three 40/41 questions first:

1.) Japan Pacific strategy

2.) Economics Production in 1941

3.) Commonwealth steel production. - How many tons of steel did the CW produce in '41? and how much did they import from the USA?


----------



## Njaco (Jul 3, 2011)

Sorry Free if I don't have the grey matter to really respond intelligently to your post - at least for the next month!  But a few have surmised about no Lend-Lease. Could US manufacturers have moved operations into Canada vis-a-vis GM and Mexico and thereby by-passed the neutrality restrictions?


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 3, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Sorry Free if I don't have the grey matter to really respond intelligently to your post - at least for the next month!  But a few have surmised about no Lend-Lease. Could US manufacturers have moved operations into Canada vis-a-vis GM and Mexico and thereby by-passed the neutrality restrictions?


GM and Ford were both im Canada amd pumped out 800000 military vehicles 2nd only to US , Canada also delayed declaring war so that they could order militray stuff from US without messing up US neutrality stance


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2011)

If the Japanese enter the war and the US does not, thats end of game in my opinion. If Japan enters the war and US does as well, with the US stronger than she was historically because of no Lend lease, but the British weaker, also because of no Lend lease, I see no great change occurring to the final outcome. The details however might be intersting. If Australia and the other Pacific CW nations are taken off the Lend Lease drip feed from the beginning of the war, you are goiung to see a lot more indigenous innovation...Boomerang fighters instead of P-40s, CA4 Bombers instead of A-20s, AC! and AC4 tanks, Battle Class Destroyers, home built shipping etc, Because British technical assistance would end with tizard, the US will not have quite as marked an advantage over the Japanese in certain fields.....for example the introduction of VT shells might be delayed a couple of months, they might not have quite as advanced radar, they may not have benefitted froom British experiences in the desert war or BoB experiences in air technologies as they did. Stangard US air armaments might remain 2 x 30cal and 1 x 50 cal instead of 6 x 50 cal. Its hard to say what the outcome might be....though the overall outcome of the war would be unnaffected.

Insofar as war production is concerned, wiki has an intersting article on Axis vs Allied GDP. Allied advantage historically reaches its nadir in 1941, with an advantage of just 1.51. By 1942 it has jumped to about 2.92:1 and thereafte just continues to climb, to a high of 5.02 atr the beginning of 1945. Thereafter Allied demobilzation starts to have an effect, and of course the Axis are surrendering. I dont see Lend Lease affecting that much, execpt in 1941, when military imports from the US drops. Overall that affects British income by about 6%, but CW income will go up, possibly by about 4% or so. So the nett effect of no Lend Lease in 1941 is about a drop of 0.2, so the allied adfvantage in GDP drops to about 1.47 or so....nothing to worry about at all IMO.

In regards to Steel production I dont have great figures, mostly because I dont any figures for the minor players. Of course the US has the lions share of production, with about 80m tons of steel production per annum. British production hovers at the 12.3m tons pa, Canadian is at about 3m tons. Australia in 1940 had recently completed two additinal blast furnaces (bringing the total to 6) and and additional steel manufacturing facilities. According to the official History:

_Though much had been done in the way of preparing the steel industr y for the emergency of war, a great deal remained to be done after war broke out . No one could have predicted exactly what the demands on it would be. The completion at Whyalla of a sixth blast furnace, which began operation in May 1941, was a major step in the wartime expansion of the industry. It brought the total capacity for producing pig iron up to 1,764,000 tons a year ; the maximum output of 1,543,973 tons was achieved in 1941, but thereafter, owing to the inevitable decline in manpower available for industry, and, after 1943, the decline in demand, production
fell. The output of iron and steel from 1938 to 1944 is shown in the accompanying table . To keep pace with the increased output of pig iron it was necessary to build more open-hearth furnaces for making steel: one was built at the Newcastle Steelworks, and two at the works o f Australian Iron and Steel at Port Kembla . This step did not of itself guarantee an increased supply of steel . There remained the problem of obtaining the raw materials used in the conversion of pig iron to steel 

Pig iron(tons)/Ingot steel (tons )
1938-39 1,104,605/1,171,78 7
1940-41 1,475,707/1,647,10 8
1941-42 1,557,641/1,699,79 5
1942-43 1,399,306/1,632,82 5
1943-44 1,305,357/1,527,564_

With regards to South Africa, I dont have good information. However there were two Blast furnaces at the end of WWI, plus major expansions occurred in her steel industry in 1934. Today South Africa outproduces Australian Steel production by a considerable margin....we produce 7.9m tons per annum, they produce 10.6m tons. Canada produces 14m tons by comparison. If that basic relationship existed in 1940-41, then South Africa probably produced about 2m tons in 1941.

India is a complete enigma, but a reasonable gues might be 1m tons of steel.....do you have any information, because I dont.

The rest of the Commonwealth probably amounted to less than a million tons.....again have no information, I am just guessing on that one


Taking into account all this, we can say for sure that the british CW output was definately at least 16.8m tons, , has a high probablity of producing at least 18.8m tons, and a possibility of producing about 20.5m tons. German steel production was 21.5m tons in 1940, and 28.2m tons in 1941. They had access to the French steel making capoacity as well as the rather limited capacities of the rest of occupied Europe. Italian steel production was about 2.1m tons in both 1940 and 1941. Total Axis steel production in 1940 was 24.6m tons and 31.1m tons in 1940 and 1941


----------



## Njaco (Jul 3, 2011)

Thanks Neil, but would it be a possibility to increase production there to meet UK demands? And Boeing and Curtiss, etc moving to Canada for the same ?


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 3, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Thanks Neil, but would it be a possibility to increase production there to meet UK demands? And Boeing and Curtiss, etc moving to Canada for the same ?


They basically did supply the UK with motorized transport. A surprising thing and little known is the amount of Canadian women that worked the assembly line from Canada at both Curtiss and Bell no green card required at the time and they are close to border. Niagara Falls on both sides of the border was very heavy into abrasives due to the proximity of power sources


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 3, 2011)

".... So my gut feeling from this is that the Russians will come out of this as the sole power in control of Europe...."

I agree. And for Stalin the ultimate target was to take on the US - as it was for Hitler BTW . His _game_ began when Stalin triumphed over the "internationalists" in the Party and began building 'Communism, In One Country'. The technology transfers with Ford, Austin, PacCar to name a few - came after 1930. But from 1922-33 Stalin was tightly focused on Germany - training for tanks and Air in Russia, bought and paid for by Germany. Of course all ended after Hitler took complete power in 1933, but by then Stalin had purchased the factories to build an industrial (military and agricultural) economy.

So yes - given the climate of the '30's in Europe and the world - had it not been for Britain - the Commonwealth - and then the US .... Stalin would have got to Brest by 1950. And he would have had the help of European intellectuals who were Red Tolerant .... 

MM


----------



## Freebird (Jul 4, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Freebird,
> 
> British financial contributions to China are discussed in a 1991 essay by Philip Richardson '"Plucking the China Brand from the Burning": Britain’s Economic Assistance to China and Sir Otto Niemeyer’s Mission, 1941-42’, China Quarterly No. 125, pp. 86-108. I made a mistake in my original statement - British financial aid outstripped all others, including the US, through the end of 1940. One addition, however, was that the *UK-based loans* were made on far more favourable terms than those of the US.
> 
> ...



Interesting find Buffnut.
I can't seem to access the full article (without paying $$$ lol ) but I found this abstract of the article



> Plucking the China Brand from the Burning‘: Britain's Economic Assistance to China and Sir Otto Niemeyer's Mission, 1940–42
> *Philip Richardson*
> For over four years from the Marco Polo Bridge incident to Pearl Harbour China fought alone against Japanese military expansionism in the Far East. Both Britain and the United States recognized China's strategic importance but gave relatively little in the way of material help. On the one hand sufficient aid had to be given to ensure that China continued to act as a bulwark against Japanese imperialism and to keep China from gravitating to the Soviet Union (whose aid programme was more immediate, more generous and took the form of military supplies). On the other hand assistance was limited by British resource constraints, by American isolationist public opinion and by the fear, on both sides of the Atlantic, that overt military aid would provoke Japan into widening the conflict into their own respective spheres of interest.



This seems to be going in the direction I was thinking, the UK would like to prevent total Japanese domination, *provided* that they could do so without provoking a war. It also confirms that "relatively little" material help could be given, as Britain really had very little to spare in the way of armaments. The term "UK based loans" in 1940 also likely includes US money sent through the UK, as while the US neutrality act allows Cash Carry, it forbids loans or credits to belligerents.

However I think there are three points to remember here:

A.) While the British would like to avoid having Japan in complete contol of China, having either of the alternatives in total power is not desired either.
~They obviously don't want the Communists to win (The Red Plague) especially as Britain and the Soviet Union are enemies at this point
~The KMT is also seen as a dangerous nationalist organization, it's been banned in British Malaya since the late 20's, and is somewhat allied with Nehru and the Indian nationalists seeking to overthrow British rule.

B.) At the beginning of 1941, the Japanese seem to be stalled and on the defensive, while the communists KMT often seem to be fighting each other. The two most significant actions are the CPC completing the "Hundred Regiments offensive", inflicting serious damage disruption on Japanese transportation and coal producing assets, while the KMT on the other hand seem to be fighting the CPC, with the "New Fourth Army Incedent" taking place in Jan 1941.

C.) The British under Churchill have shown little hesitation to put British interests first, as in attacking (former allies) the French, or sacrificing Polish independance to Soviet control.
If the cost to provide support to the KMT (of questionable benefit) would be conflict with Japan I just don't see them doing it.



The end result (IMO) would be that British ( Dutch) position wouldn't change from Nov '40 through the end 1941, they would continue to sell oil metals to the Japanese. Without US leadership there would be no embargo or much in the way of arms provided, although they would turn a blind eye to some low-level smuggling of arms to the KMT through Burma. 

Without the embargo LL arms flowing to China the Japanese will start to improve their position in the second half of 1941, *however* as they do so the will most certainly face stiffer resistance from the CPC KMT, as the two will have to stop fighting each other and concentrate on the Japanese. 

End result: While the Japanese position in China will improve through '41-'42 with no Pacific war, I don't think they have enough strength to take control of China in this period.
During 1942 the danger posed by a more powerful Japan and the economic damage caused by strict neutrality will become a central question in the 1942 Congressional elections, so one might expect that US positions could change significantly after Nov 1942


----------



## Freebird (Jul 10, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> One must also remember the political aspect - Churchill was willing to employ pretty much any tactic to draw the US closer into the war on the side of the Commonwealth. In that context, Lend Lease was a major victory for his political strategy.


 


buffnut453 said:


> The only powers who could stop Japan were Britain and America. Without Britain, America had to do it all alone, which simply wasn't conceivable. When it became apparent that British gold reserves were running out, making it difficult for her to continue buying US armaments, the options were to leave Britain hanging out to dry or to find some way of helping. Lend Lease was the implementation of the latter approach.


 
Buffnut, you are correct, however it's only part of the story. Most people think of L-L as FDR offering an altruistic helping hand to the British.
In fact, L-L and related deals helped out the US as much as it did the UK.
The armaments under L-L helped to jump start the US economy into high gear, and it also allowed the US to try evaluate new designs before putting it into production. 
It was finally able to leave the Great Depression behind.
(US unemployment remained above 15% until 1940)
It also provided a reason to get the British on board with the US Pacific strategy.


Now, had the US decided to go into full isolationist mode it would result in the UK shifting production to the Dominions (mainly Canada), although somewhat more difficult than using US production, could still be done.

There are several benefits to using Canadian production vs US, one of the main ones is removing the requirement to pay for supplies in hard currency.
It looks like Churchill vastly _*overestimated*_ the help that the immediate help US could give to the UK, while he badly _*underestimated*_ the potential short-term harm that US entry to the war could bring.

Despite the advent of L-L, the UK was still forced to pay cash for most of it's aircraft vehicles delivered in 1941. Only 100 of 2,400 aircraft and 6,000 of 14,000 vehicles that arrived in 1941 came through Lend-Lease.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2011)

Without the economic and military support of the U.S. in the Pacific I still could not envisage a south-east Asia completely dominated by the Japanese because the naval power can only be extended so far inland; places like India and China would not be fully conquerable simply due to the overwhelming numbers faced by a small Japanese invasion force. The Japanese push into India was a massive upset, to put it lightly; a stalemate might ensue but I think the battle in the Pacific (without the U.S.) would have been dominated by the outcome of Europe after the intial phases of the conflict. Could the British and Soviet Empires overcome the Axis in Europe then turn on Japan...I don't know.
As for the economic implications, I must add that during the First World War Britain considered itself the economic and naval powerhouse of the Entente, while France were considered the military might... maybe without the U.S. Britain would hold a border at India, pour considerable resources into North Africa to hold and then use the Commonwealth as the power house to support the Soviet Union ...using them as the hammer. As for the Lend Lease helping the U.S. there's lessons to be learnt here across the world...stop cutting back and start providing money to build an economy again! The British debt now has been this high or high in 220 of the last 250 years...yet we cut back...and when the consumer cuts back and then the government cuts back its disaster. The bond markets were quick to jump on the boost in spending for the U.S. economy in World War II , and carried on after...and they would do the same today.


----------

