Lend Lease for Britain

[evangilder]

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]

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]

By the way did you put the avatar pic?

What are you talking about?

 

[Njaco]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

And that is why you are gone...

 

[parsifal]

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]

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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

LMAO

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[Readie]

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

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

 

[Freebird]

. 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.

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.

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. )

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"

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.