Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As I understand the two companies simply took different ways of manufacturing an engine to the required tolerances.
In the UK, with cheaper labour and (generally) shorter production volumes they'd produce components to looser tolerances, then after manufacture get these groups into matching assemblies with the required tolerance.
In the US, with more expensive labour, larger production runs and presumably a more highly developed capital raising system they'd spend more on production machinery that produced tighter tolerances in the first place, without requiring the manual sorting and matching.
Both were valid for their particular circumstances.
You just continued the myth.As I understand the two companies simply took different ways of manufacturing an engine to the required tolerances.
In the UK, with cheaper labour and (generally) shorter production volumes they'd produce components to looser tolerances, then after manufacture get these groups into matching assemblies with the required tolerance.
In the US, with more expensive labour, larger production runs and presumably a more highly developed capital raising system they'd spend more on production machinery that produced tighter tolerances in the first place, without requiring the manual sorting and matching.
Both were valid for their particular circumstances.
Don't forget that despite other Central Powers being involved in the great war, it was Germany who was the "last man standing" when the armistice was signed and the war reparations imposed on Germany were staggering.
As I understand the two companies simply took different ways of manufacturing an engine to the required tolerances.
In the UK, with cheaper labour and (generally) shorter production volumes they'd produce components to looser tolerances, then after manufacture get these groups into matching assemblies with the required tolerance.
In the US, with more expensive labour, larger production runs and presumably a more highly developed capital raising system they'd spend more on production machinery that produced tighter tolerances in the first place, without requiring the manual sorting and matching.
Both were valid for their particular circumstances.
In a war time economy wages are not so important or telling. What the UK was short of was people, they had largely run out of places that a factory of 10-15,000 people could be put. For the Glasgow factory they had to build accommodation and move people to it.Not sure that the UK had lower wages.
And Rolls-Royce were ramping up production at their factories before Packard even started work on the Merlin.
The problem that made it rather unlikely that an acceptable treaty could be negotiated or imposed after WW1 was that everyone on both sides had been exposed to four years of propaganda from controlled newspapers. Thus everyone on both sides knew that their cause was just and any attempt to impose a war guilt clause was likely to generated a burning sense of injustice. It was easier after WW2 because most people blame Hitler for that whilst arguments on who started WW1 continue fiercely to this day in academia....and likely less than those imposed on France after the Napoleonic Wars, yet France didn't get taken over by anything like the nazis. That Versailles was a particularly vicious or financially onerous is another myth that needs busting. Compare it to the Treaties of Vienna and Frankfurt or Brest-Litovsk (which was nullified by Germany's ultimate defeat in 1918).
The problem that made it rather unlikely that an acceptable treaty could be negotiated or imposed after WW1 was that everyone on both sides had been exposed to four years of propaganda from controlled newspapers. Thus everyone on both sides knew that their cause was just and any attempt to impose a war guilt clause was likely to generated a burning sense of injustice. It was easier after WW2 because most people blame Hitler for that whilst arguments on who started WW1 continue fiercely to this day in academia.
The Social Democrats and their paramilitary arm, Antifaschiste Aktion (funded by Moscow) played right into the National Socialist's dialogue, too.
Post WWI Germany, and to a certain extent, the rest of Europe, was put into turmoil as society was moving away from a traditional class system that had existed for centuries. Italy, Spain, Greece are just a few examples of radical change in the post WWI years.
In the late 1920's and early 1930's, Germany had roughly 150 political parties, a broken government and astronomical inflation just to name a few points in the perfect storm. The National Socialists were able to gain traction with the public, because they offered stability in a tumultuous environment and used jews and communists as their scapegoat. The Social Democrats and their paramilitary arm, Antifaschiste Aktion (funded by Moscow) played right into the National Socialist's dialogue, too.
And in regards to my earlier comment about staggering debt, I'm pretty sure that 132 billion Geldmarks in 1921 was not pocket change. Germany fell behind on their payments and France occupied the Ruhr in 1923 creating a considerable amount of tension.
Had the Allies helped stabilize Germany and other ruined nations after WWI, then I'm sure the social and political landscape would have been much different by the late 1930's.
As I understand the two companies simply took different ways of manufacturing an engine to the required tolerances.
In the UK, with cheaper labour and (generally) shorter production volumes they'd produce components to looser tolerances, then after manufacture get these groups into matching assemblies with the required tolerance.
In the US, with more expensive labour, larger production runs and presumably a more highly developed capital raising system they'd spend more on production machinery that produced tighter tolerances in the first place, without requiring the manual sorting and matching.
Both were valid for their particular circumstances.
You know, Karl, you can thin slice all that spam, pan fry it, dice it up and fold it into a cheese omelette, add seasoning to taste.
I'll put it on the menu when we re openYou know, Karl, you can thin slice all that spam, pan fry it, dice it up and fold it into a cheese omelette, add seasoning to taste.
It'll be a hit with the patrons and you'll be a hero!
We were glad to help! I should also mention that you Brits are most fortunate that it was Packard that saved you - had it been Henry Ford, he'd have taken over everything and claimed as his ownI'll put it on the menu when we re open.
On a more serious note, i am just glad America let us dumb British build your magnificent Packard merlin, even if Rolls Royce didnt build it very well or very quickly !
Seriously, my Mom used to dice pan-fried spam and folded it into omelettes and other dishes, like Macaroni and Cheese and fettuchini carabonara.I'll put it on the menu when we re open
Spam fritters, Mmmmmmmmm !And, of course, there's Spam fritters ..................... once one of the staples in the canteens of UK Social Security main sites.