German industrial production in WWII was extremely inefficient and whilst many people like to praise the likes of Albert Speer, he didn't have the same impact on industrial production as Lord Beavorbrook's early war initiatives. Remember Germany was preparing for war many years before Britain, the UK had to play catch-up and the country did an incredible job between 39 and 42 militarizing industry - hammering plowshares back into guns. The fact that Germany insisted on designing and prototyping endless designs using slow man-hour intensive production methods (German welded tank turrets vs. the cast turrets first introduced by the Russians) only added to their woes.First of all. You just can't compare vehicle to vehicle. There is a difference between a "Churchil" and a Pzkv IV (aus F2), one of them being that the panzer was more ressource intensive and another being that it would destroy the churchill in all but the most unfavorable circumstances.
Second of all 1942 is before german industry was converted into total war production (that happens early in the UK), when that is done you see f.ex. german tank production peak, dispite ressource shortings and bombings in late 43 early 44. Again the german tanks was more elaborate and difficult to produce than
allied tanks, though (from Pz IV and onwards) held a decissive advantage on the battlefield, while having complete advantage over western allied tanks the russians fielded tanks that could content at a disadvantage.
You are also forgetting that the UK drew heavely on financial surport from the US, without that the UK could not have mobilised such large part of the production into armament (btw the finance part of the deal spelled the doom of the british empire).
You focuss a lot on the RN, but forget the reality, displayed in Lord Pound's admission the Churchill that the RN could no longer gurantee the isles. It was air power and not hulks of steel that mattered - as displayed in the pacific.
I agree that particulary the sluggish german production of airplanes became a factor in it's defeat. It's an interesting subject that the nazi regime failed to stream line production of a few workhorses be that airplanes, tanks or trucks but again and again made the error of diverting huge ressources into development and production of a number fantastic but always scarce types. Though it has to be underlined that the german types as a rule were superior from a technological point of view. In the air war the german technical superiority becomes potentially "war winning" a year or so too late.
Whilst we can criticise early British attempts to compete with German tank designs, by 1944 Britain had overtaken the Germans technologically. The Comet and Centurion (the latter arriving in 1945 just as the war ended) was better than anything the Germans had on the field or planned taking into consideration the critical balance between firepower, mobility and armour. The 17pdr for one was superior to the 88mm, nevermind the later 20pdr. And lets not forget the Centurion went on to be arguably the most successful post war combat proven battle tank (Korea, Vietnam, Indo-Pakistan Wars, Israelis / ME conflict), finally setting the NATO standard with its retrofitted 105mm main armament. Versions of which still serve today in the South African and Israeli armies.
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....ser-tank-a34&catid=37:cruiser-tanks&Itemid=56
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_tank
This whole argument about the US not supporting Britain financially defies all free-market economics. US industry would not have accepted not being able to profit from the supply of war materials regardless of whether its own Government decided to join Britain on the battlefields of Europe. American industry would have seen it as an opportunity to drive the US out of the depression of the 30's - a means to create milions of jobs. WWII not the Tennessee Valley Authority initiatives pulled the country out of recession.
Last edited:
