Best Air Force 1939-1941

Mustang nut said:

I dont know what point you are making, without lend lease the Americas are isolated Europe Africa Asia and eventually India Australasia are under the control of either the Nazis Communists or Japanese. Lend lease was a deal between allies for mutual benefit. The USA may have eventually been the biggest winner financially but how would you price a dark age of Europe including Britain being ruled by Adolf? As I understand history Greece was liberated by lend lease weapons.

Click to expand...

I don't know why i'm not getting through.LL was vital to Britain ,without it the country would collapse(unless you think a country at war can reduce armaments)
Obviously the Americans weren't being kind they were defending their interests.I'm not talking about the morality or if it was a good or bad deal.

No P-40 for North Africa would mean the 18 squadrons would have remained equipped with Hurricanes. No P-36s for the Far East - a whole 2 squadrons - hardly significant.

Tanks in North Africa? I think one of the main tanks during the key phases of the fighting was the dear old Matilda - once again, produced in the UK.

As for Bomber Command being unable to sustain horrific losses, what relevance does that have to Lend Lease? Bomber Command was primarily equipped with British-manufactured aircraft.

Once again, the 25% figure was for all war-related supplies. Lend Lease did not keep Britain from collapsing. That's absolute nonsense.

Mustang nut said:

Sorry Steve

The point I was making was that Greece has defaulted on its national debt 5 times the UK never has despite 2 world wars and the Napoleonic wars etc etc. That is off topic but in 1939-45 it was taken into account by those that extended credit to the UK and today is taken into account on world money markets.

Click to expand...

I was just making sure everyone knew I made the original. post. Perhaps I should make a little explanation/apology to you for not taking more time in my original post to elaborate. I guess we all know how easy it is to quickly throw out a reply on this forum that given more time crafting would have better clarity. What I was trying to communicate was that I do not think the financial condition Greece finds itself in today in any way invalidates Ctrian's opinion. In fact you can often learn more about and how to avoid a bad situation from a "loser" than a "winner". Ctrian informed me by PM he considered your comment just joking. I think my own appreciation of the historically difficult Geopolitical position of Greece and my own sensitivity to having the U.K. and U.S.A. appearing as smug bullies caused me to be more blunt than I should have been.

I am truly surprised after decades of disclosure and research that anyone could not think that the U.S. benefited from lend-lease as much as the recipients.

ctrian said:

LL was vital to Britain ,without it the country would collapse(unless you think a country at war can reduce armaments.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're saying. The UK was producing huge quantities of armaments in its own right - Spitfires, Hurricanes, Lancasters, Mosquitos, Matilda tanks, Churchill tanks, ships etc etc etc. We had oil supplies from Iraq and food and other materials from across the Empire and Commonwealth. Can you please explain to me how the loss of US-produced war materiel would cause a collapse in the UK? You keep making that statement without any back-up information. Please justify your comments.

ctrian said:

I don't know why i'm not getting through.LL was vital to Britain ,without it the country would collapse(unless you think a country at war can reduce armaments)
Obviously the Americans weren't being kind they were defending their interests.I'm not talking about the morality or if it was a good or bad deal.

Click to expand...

Ctrian

As pointed out lend lease was 25% of the British war effort. We could easily defend ourselves at the time from invasion, other things such as N Africa and the far east may have had to be scaled down but what difference would that make? Eventually the USA may have beaten Japan and eventually Russia may have beaten Germany or Germany may have won and turned on Britain and Britain may have lost but that is different to Britain collapsing because LL didnt happen. Without LL the whole world would have collapsed one way or another.

Most people are technically bankrupt for most of their lives because they take out a loan to buy houses and cars, you only actually become bankrupt when someone calls in the loan, its the same with countries. The USA extended credit for a period of 4 years for supplies to help both sides of the partneship win the war, it was neither given as charity or demanded as a right.

Why the heck are you all bickering over lend lease, national debts and tanks in North Africa, when the thread/poll is about the "Best Airforce 1939 to 1941"?

Mustang nut said:

Ctrian

As pointed out lend lease was 25% of the British war effort. We could easily defend ourselves at the time from invasion, other things such as N Africa and the far east may have had to be scaled down but what difference would that make? .

Click to expand...

Collapse in N.Africa ,Middle East goes to the Axis.Collapse in Far East even worse than historically happened.No Bomber Offensive (a contracting economy will not be able to support attrition on such a scale).That country was terribly overextended even with American aid without it the most that you could do was make sure noone invaded you? What about every kind of material bought from the US ,could your economy function without it? Machine tools ,fuel ,food etc ? LL was 10% of Soviet effort and it was decisive you think 25% somehow means you could go at it alone? Did you read what the prof said ? Scale down armaments in the middle of the war ...

@GrauGeist : neither side can walk away i'm afraid

Lighthunmust said:

I was just making sure everyone knew I made the original. post. Perhaps I should make a little explanation/apology to you for not taking more time in my original post to elaborate. I guess we all know how easy it is to quickly throw out a reply on this forum that given more time crafting would have better clarity. What I was trying to communicate was that I do not think the financial condition Greece finds itself in today in any way invalidates Ctrian's opinion. In fact you can often learn more about and how to avoid a bad situation from a "loser" than a "winner". Ctrian informed me by PM he considered your comment just joking. I think my own appreciation of the historically difficult Geopolitical position of Greece and my own sensitivity to having the U.K. and U.S.A. appearing as smug bullies caused me to be more blunt than I should have been.

I am truly surprised after decades of disclosure and research that anyone could not think that the U.S. benefited from lend-lease as much as the recipients.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that Lighthunmust

I was just joking of course but having been to Greece and visited a site where the Nazis massacred civilians I would say Greece was as much a beneficiary of LL as the UK was so I find Ctrians point of view surprising but we are all entitled to an opinion.

Graugeist

Good point I think this is going no where

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

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

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

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

buffnut453 said:

However, the UK was paying for all the factories across the Empire and Commonwealth that were producing war materiel using Pounds Sterling.

Click to expand...

I believe at least in Canada we paid for these factories ourselves

buffnut453 said:

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

buffnut453 said:

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

Click to expand...

In '41 and '42 ? ????

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ctrian said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

parsifal said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

MM