PDA

View Full Version : Did the British Rolls-Royce Merlin Engine win WW2?



MB_Avro_UK
07-26-2008, 04:20 PM
Hi all,

The Rolls-Royce British Merlin engine powered the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster and the Mustang.And others.

The first Mustangs were purchased by the RAF from the USA. They were powered by US Allison engines and the Mustang at that point was a 'dog' so I've read.(Why did the US give an engine a girl's name... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

A bright spark in the RAF suggested that the Mustang should be powered by a British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

Who was that RAF bright spark?

The rest is history as thay say.

The Mustang was a combination of excellent US design and the marriage of Rolls-Royce technology.

And Mustang sounds far better than P-51 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ElAurens
07-26-2008, 04:37 PM
Allison is the name of the manufacturer, not the name of the engine. Technically it is a V-1710.

Allison did not use names for their engines, unlike RR(Merlin), Pratt & Whitey(Wasp), Wright(Cyclone), etc...

The real Achilles heel of the Allison V-1710 was not the engine itself, it was actually quite a good basic package. It was it's lack of a two speed, two stage supercharger that hindered it's high altitude performance. When given a turbo-supercharger arrangement (as in the P38) it was more than capable of making high power at altitude.

It should also be noted that the Allison engined P51s and A36s were no slouches at the altitudes the engines were tuned for.

Just coming to the defense of an engine that is wrongly maligned these days.

Mr_Zooly
07-26-2008, 04:47 PM
The name Mustang was first coined by an Englishman iirc, dont remember his name though.
Also the bubble canopy was an English invention (the Malcolm hood). the P51 was the best British fighter the USA ever built http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Freiwillige
07-26-2008, 05:40 PM
The Mustang was desighned by this man, A German!

Edgar Schmued, German-American aircraft designer (1899 - 1985) was famed for his design of the iconic P-51 Mustang and, later, the F-86 Sabre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Schmued

JSG72
07-26-2008, 06:04 PM
Don't know about winning the War.

But 6 of them just flew over my head today and they certainly won my heart!

BOBF. East Fortune Airshow. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Taylortony
07-26-2008, 06:11 PM
Yes it did, simply because if it never had won the Battle of Britain everthing else would have been superflous as there would never have been any D Day landings or a second front allowing Mr Hitler to pour all his resources into Russia.

leitmotiv
07-26-2008, 06:14 PM
I'd say it did a big share of the war-winning but it did not power the U.S. heavies, the U.S. transports, and the aircraft of the USN---this represents a huge number of warplanes. The Merlin was the war winner in the darkest days from 1939-1941 powering the Spitfire, Hurricane, Whitley, some Wellingtons, and the Halifax. Being the powerplant of the Lancaster, Mosquito, and some of the later Spits carries big kudos. The Merlin Mustang killed the Luftwaffe in its crib, and removed it as a factor in German defense---this was one of the decisive campaigns of the war. The Merlin and the Griffin along with the 2000hp P&Ws were the finest engines in the Allied stable.

ElAurens
07-26-2008, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The Mustang was desighned by this man, A German!


Mr. Schmued was a citizen of the United States. Not a German.

Enough of this bogus revisionism.

And do remember that Germany was led down the garden path by an Austrian.

Taylortony
07-26-2008, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:


And do remember that Germany was led down the garden path by an Austrian.


And not only that, the Germanic nation was going to be a pure born, blonde haired, blue eyed Aryan Master Race.... One wonders how Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himler and the rest of the feeble half witted bunch of miscreants managed to have slipped through the Aryan net of the "Master Race"

blakduk
07-27-2008, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The Mustang was desighned by this man, A German!


Mr. Schmued was a citizen of the United States. Not a German.

Enough of this bogus revisionism.

And do remember that Germany was led down the garden path by an Austrian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The best answer i've heard to this nonsense is the observation that the allies had better Germans than the Germans did.
Eisenhower, Nimitz, Oppenheimer... just to name a few http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SeaFireLIV
07-27-2008, 04:06 AM
Well at least the thread title is better than the usual, `teh P51 won teh war!`

ICDP
07-27-2008, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The Mustang was desighned by this man, A German!


Mr. Schmued was a citizen of the United States. Not a German.

Enough of this bogus revisionism.

And do remember that Germany was led down the garden path by an Austrian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not revisionism, Edgar Schmued WAS born in Germany. That fact makes his nationality German regardless of wether he was a US citizen. He was born and grew up in Germany where he learned his trade before moving to Brazil, then the US. Citizenship does not equal nationality. I am a British citizen but was born in Northern Ireland, this makes me an Irishman wether I like it or not.

Do not confuse nationality with citizenship.

Bremspropeller
07-27-2008, 05:44 AM
"Our Germans are better than their Germans..."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

mortoma
07-27-2008, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

The Rolls-Royce British Merlin engine powered the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster and the Mustang.And others.

The first Mustangs were purchased by the RAF from the USA. They were powered by US Allison engines and the Mustang at that point was a 'dog' so I've read.(Why did the US give an engine a girl's name... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

A bright spark in the RAF suggested that the Mustang should be powered by a British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

Who was that RAF bright spark?

The rest is history as thay say.

The Mustang was a combination of excellent US design and the marriage of Rolls-Royce technology.

And Mustang sounds far better than P-51 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Best Regards,
MB_Avro. The Allison was no dog, not a low altitude. Allison's were just not developed for high altitudes at least not at first. By the time Allison developed good enough superchargers for high altitudes, most of the Mustangs and such already had Merlins. At low altitude the Allison was a screamer and a very reliable engine. And do remember that the radials in the P-47, all of which were American made, were better up high than any Merlin.

Aaron_GT
07-27-2008, 10:57 AM
And do remember that the radials in the P-47, all of which were American made, were better up high than any Merlin.

That's not entirely correct. In the P-47, for example, the killer combination was the engine plus turbosupercharger. So in comparing the Merlin (with no turbosupercharger) with the R2800 in the P-47 (with turbosupercharger) and declaring the Merlin wanting you would be committing the same error you felt that others did in denigrating the Allison. (Other US radial installations also had turbosuperchargers for high altitude work, e.g. in the B-17).

M_Gunz
07-27-2008, 11:40 AM
It's not so much any piece of Allied equipment that "won" the war.
Truth is that nutball Hitler and his backers picked a fight they couldn't win and lost badly.

ElAurens
07-27-2008, 11:54 AM
+1

Bremspropeller
07-27-2008, 12:06 PM
+2

DuxCorvan
07-27-2008, 01:41 PM
The Realm of the Dead won WW2. Much larger and populated after it.

KrashanTopolova
07-27-2008, 05:49 PM
the BF109 originally had a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine. Some He-111's (Spanish) had Merlin engines, so did some Nihon types. I endorse the assertion that the Allison was a screamer at low altitude. If ever there was an undermodelled aircraft in il-2 it is the P-40 in the Pacific. the only thing that made it slower was its heavy airframe, its 6 x 0.5s and it's cockpit armour. You should see how high it stands without those last two things.

Freiwillige
07-27-2008, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The Mustang was desighned by this man, A German!


Mr. Schmued was a citizen of the United States. Not a German.

Enough of this bogus revisionism.

And do remember that Germany was led down the garden path by an Austrian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes he was a citizen of the United States But He was German born, raised, And educated. That to me says he's German! German -American yes but German nonetheless. If I moved to Italy tommorow that wouldnt make me anymore Italian.
Its not where your at its who you are. Mr. Schmued was a German. And also Austrians and Germans share the same Culture, Language and Historical background so it wasnt much of a leap for Hitler to lead the Germans considering they considered themselves one and the same. Volk zu Volk und Blut zu Blut was the saying of the day.

Korolov1986
07-27-2008, 08:27 PM
Keep in mind that many Americans have German heritage. So while his heritage was German, he was for all intents and purposes, an American.

For that matter, consider that the P-47 was designed by a Russian, and the P-38 by a Swede. Confusing, huh?

hsj43
07-27-2008, 10:06 PM
The P-51 is a great plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

HayateAce
07-27-2008, 10:28 PM
Yes, Merlin won teh war.


http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_03_img1308.jpg

Frequent_Flyer
07-27-2008, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The Mustang was desighned by this man, A German!


Mr. Schmued was a citizen of the United States. Not a German.

Enough of this bogus revisionism.

And do remember that Germany was led down the garden path by an Austrian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not revisionism, Edgar Schmued WAS born in Germany. That fact makes his nationality German regardless of wether he was a US citizen. He was born and grew up in Germany where he learned his trade before moving to Brazil, then the US. Citizenship does not equal nationality. I am a British citizen but was born in Northern Ireland, this makes me an Irishman wether I like it or not.

Do not confuse nationality with citizenship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Using your logic, we are all African's. There is only one race of people considered " Native Americans". Everyone else is from somewhere else, and may be considered ,in this instatnce of German heritage. However, he is American.

RAF_OldBuzzard
07-28-2008, 02:00 AM
What engine "won the war"? Pretty easy answer.

Pratt & Whitney R-1830

That's what the C-47 used. Without that, most of the other aircraft would have been sitting on the ground waiting for supplies.

Yeah, the Fighter and Bomber guys got all the glory, but it took the C-47 to get the fuel, ammo, and bombs to them that allowed them to do their thing.

OD_
07-28-2008, 03:10 AM
The Merlin also powered the Cromwell tank and a couple of others.

Taking it to Jerry on land and the air!

Esel1964
07-28-2008, 03:24 AM
No way,remember there are MANY Packard versions out there.It's not something glitzy,it's something that gave the same advantage to all soldiers,M-1 Garand,deuce and a half,as OLD Buzzard said C-47,or Jeep.--------------------

It's the men on the ground,that faced He** and fought back.Men like our grandfathers will very rarely come around,men that look forward to signing up.And God Bless them all!

I realize there're plenty of folks ready to sign up,just not like Dec. 7-11,1941.

BWaltteri
07-28-2008, 03:26 AM
Fridge magnets did it.

tragentsmith
07-28-2008, 03:36 AM
I think the engines of the liberty ships did it.

WOLFMondo
07-28-2008, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
And do remember that the radials in the P-47, all of which were American made, were better up high than any Merlin.

I think not and certainly not the Griffon which had an extra 1000ft on its ceiling over the R2800.

Bremspropeller
07-28-2008, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Yes, Merlin won teh war.




Win! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SeaFireLIV
07-28-2008, 05:57 AM
It`s all kind of stupid isn`t it. I mean, look at us, quibbling about what engine won the war. What next? What nuts and bolts? What paint used on the camouflage, what toothbrush?

The Allies won the war through hardwork and cooperation, the rest is childish foolery.

Skoshi Tiger
07-28-2008, 06:20 AM
It was a good thing that petrol was a lot cheaper back then. At todays prices all those old aero engines would have sent the compeating countries broke!

The only Mustangs they would have been able to use would have had four hooves! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG52Uther
07-28-2008, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
It was a good thing that petrol was a lot cheaper back then. At todays prices all those old aero engines would have sent the compeating countries broke!

The only Mustangs they would have been able to use would have had four hooves! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Most of the competing countries DID go broke.Then the 'winners' spent the years after the war going even broker rebuilding the countries they had just spent the last 6 years bombing to rubble.

Skoshi Tiger
07-28-2008, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
It was a good thing that petrol was a lot cheaper back then. At todays prices all those old aero engines would have sent the compeating countries broke!

The only Mustangs they would have been able to use would have had four hooves! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Most of the competing countries DID go broke.Then the 'winners' spent the years after the war going even broker rebuilding the countries they had just spent the last 6 years bombing to rubble. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That just about sums it up!

ICDP
07-28-2008, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The Mustang was desighned by this man, A German!


Mr. Schmued was a citizen of the United States. Not a German.

Enough of this bogus revisionism.

And do remember that Germany was led down the garden path by an Austrian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not revisionism, Edgar Schmued WAS born in Germany. That fact makes his nationality German regardless of wether he was a US citizen. He was born and grew up in Germany where he learned his trade before moving to Brazil, then the US. Citizenship does not equal nationality. I am a British citizen but was born in Northern Ireland, this makes me an Irishman wether I like it or not.

Do not confuse nationality with citizenship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Using your logic, we are all African's. There is only one race of people considered " Native Americans". Everyone else is from somewhere else, and may be considered ,in this instatnce of German heritage. However, he is American. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The African anology is not relevant because I am not referring to someone (Schmued) who had distant ancestors from Germany but was in fact born, raised and educated in Germany and was thus a German. No doubt he was an American citizen, there can be no question about that. Fortunatley for the Allied war effort "American" Germans like Schmued were not treated the same way as the "Japanese" Americans during WWII. Otherwise the P51D would never have existed.

R_Target
07-28-2008, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Fortunatley for the Allied war effort "American" Germans like Schmued were not treated the same way as the "Japanese" Americans during WWII.

German-Americans and Italian-Americans as well as Japanese-Americans were detained in the U.S. during the war.

Blood_Splat
07-28-2008, 10:34 AM
Briggs & Stratton

Airmail109
07-28-2008, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
Fortunatley for the Allied war effort "American" Germans like Schmued were not treated the same way as the "Japanese" Americans during WWII.

German-Americans and Italian-Americans as well as Japanese-Americans were detained in the U.S. during the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Italian Americans? Wouldn't they have to arrest half of new york?

ElAurens
07-28-2008, 10:58 AM
Many German-Americans in Ohio were paid a visit by the FBI during the war years. Basic interviews, and sometimes weapons confiscations.

My ex-GF's grandfather had to saw the shoulder stock attachment off his Broomhandle Mauser, but they let him keep it.

berg417448
07-28-2008, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:



Fortunatley for the Allied war effort "American" Germans like Schmued were not treated the same way as the "Japanese" Americans during WWII. Otherwise the P51D would never have existed.

During the war tens of thousands of German-Americans and Italian-Americans were also detained yet this fact in not widely known or nor is it often publicized:

64% of all those arrested by the FBI between December 7, 1941 and June 30, 1945 were European And European-Americans.

These internees included Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, even some Czechs and Poles.

The U.S. government apologized in 1988 to the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II and started paying reparations of $20,000 each to survivors. No similar action was ever taken regarding the thousands of German and Italian Americans who were also placed in to the camps or the estimated 600,000 Italian Americans who were placed under travel restrictions such as not being allowed to travel more than five miles from their homes without police permission.

Xiolablu3
07-28-2008, 01:26 PM
The Merlin definitely did NOT win WW2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BWaltteri
07-28-2008, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:



Fortunatley for the Allied war effort "American" Germans like Schmued were not treated the same way as the "Japanese" Americans during WWII. Otherwise the P51D would never have existed.

During the war tens of thousands of German-Americans and Italian-Americans were also detained yet this fact in not widely known or nor is it often publicized:

64% of all those arrested by the FBI between December 7, 1941 and June 30, 1945 were European And European-Americans.

These internees included Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, even some Czechs and Poles.

The U.S. government apologized in 1988 to the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II and started paying reparations of $20,000 each to survivors. No similar action was ever taken regarding the thousands of German and Italian Americans who were also placed in to the camps or the estimated 600,000 Italian Americans who were placed under travel restrictions such as not being allowed to travel more than five miles from their homes without police permission. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only Japanese got reparations?

That's the bs racism so common in the post-war issue-issue world.

Ridiculous.

WholeHawg
07-28-2008, 01:49 PM
The Russians won the war in Europe. Discuss.

Rjel
07-28-2008, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by hsj43:
The P-51 is a great plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Didn't you get sent to the sin bin or was that your brother?

Aaron_GT
07-28-2008, 03:22 PM
the BF109 once had a merlin engine,

The 109 prototype used a Kestrel, a less powerful forunner.

The Buchon (Spanish made/assembled 109) had a variety of engines, including a Rolls Royce.

As to the thread as a whole, there were a number of contributing factors against Germany:

* Code breaking
* Logistics
* Industrial production
* Manpower
* Conditions in the USSR

I don't think that any individual component won alone (against Germany) but rather a combination. Without good industrial production the Merlin wouldn't have helped much as there wouldn't have been enough. If logistics hadn't got the fuel for them and the ammunition for the planes there they still wouldn't have been much good. Without the pilots they wouldn't have been much good either, and without the code breaking and intelligence they wouldn't have known where to send them. And in any case most of the German army was alternately freezing or baking in the USSR when not bogged down in mud.

ElAurens
07-28-2008, 03:39 PM
+100,000

WTE_Galway
07-28-2008, 05:40 PM
Nah ... without Mrs Tilly and her orifice the merlin would have been nothing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

By the way, in all cases of DB/merlin swaps I have come across (notably Buchon 109's and eastern European converted DB powered hurricanes) the Daimler Benz was the engine preferred by pilots.

jarink
07-28-2008, 06:48 PM
*Sigh*

The title of this thread should be:

"Did the British-designed, American-built Packard Merlin Engine win WW2?"

By all accounts, due to Packard's experience with mass production techniques, it was easier and cheaper to build than equivalent British versions and actually easier to service in the field (due to spare parts fitting better).

BWaltteri
07-29-2008, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by WholeHawg:
The Russians won the war in Europe. Discuss.

They didn't win. The West won with Russian blood.

Losing 30 million and not getting rid of Stalin ain't winning of any kind.

Xiolablu3
07-29-2008, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
*Sigh*

The title of this thread should be:

"Did the British-designed, American-built Packard Merlin Engine win WW2?"




Absolutely not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hop2002
07-29-2008, 05:42 AM
By all accounts, due to Packard's experience with mass production techniques, it was easier and cheaper to build than equivalent British versions

Packard charged almost £6,000 for their Merlin engines. Rolls Royce in the UK charged £2,500.

Rolls Royce received some money from the government to expand production, but that amounts to a subsidy of about £500 per engine.

JG53Frankyboy
07-29-2008, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
................eastern European converted DB powered hurricanes...............

further infos about that ?

WOLFMondo
07-29-2008, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by BWaltteri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WholeHawg:
The Russians won the war in Europe. Discuss.

They didn't win. The West won with Russian blood.

Losing 30 million and not getting rid of Stalin ain't winning of any kind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+1 The USSR wasn't much better than what it replaced.

Hitler and the 3rd Reich were bad but only occupied most of Europe for 5 years. The USSR occupied Europe for 9 times that.

jarink
07-29-2008, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By all accounts, due to Packard's experience with mass production techniques, it was easier and cheaper to build than equivalent British versions

Packard charged almost £6,000 for their Merlin engines. Rolls Royce in the UK charged £2,500.

Rolls Royce received some money from the government to expand production, but that amounts to a subsidy of about £500 per engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Must have been the horrible Pound-to-Dollar exchange rate back then. That, or licensing fees paid to RR. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Seriously, I don't see how RR could have charged less than half as much for an engine that was built largely by hand versus one that was built on a modern production line. What is your source for those numbers?

MB_Avro_UK
07-29-2008, 03:00 PM
Must have been the horrible Pound-to-Dollar exchange rate back then. That, or licensing fees paid to RR.

You suggest that you are not happy with the Merlin licensing fees? What were they? I don't know and nor do you.

Maybe you should look at the 'lend lease' fees that the US charged Britain. The 'lend lease' payments were finally repaid in 2006. The interest rates were high.

It's just that without evidence you are ready to suggest that Britain 'ripped off' the US with the Merlin deal.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

http://www.avroheritage.com/index.htm

R_Target
07-29-2008, 04:47 PM
From the BBC:


The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for.

But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it.

As a result, the UK took a loan for $586m (about £145m at 1945 exchange rates), and a further $3,750m line of credit (about £930m at 1945 exchange rates). The loan was to be paid off in 50 annual repayments starting in 1950, although there were six years when payment was deferred because of economic or political crises.

Generous terms

It's easy to cough and splutter at the thought of our closest ally suddenly demanding payment for equipment rather than sparing a billion or two as a gift.

But the terms of the loan were extremely generous, with a fixed interest rate of 2% making it considerably less terrifying than a typical mortgage.

hop2002
07-29-2008, 07:46 PM
Must have been the horrible Pound-to-Dollar exchange rate back then.

The exchange rate has little bearing, as both prices are in pounds.


That, or licensing fees paid to RR.

Unlikely. The same ratio is maintained in a great deal of US production, for example the B-17 cost roughly twice as much as the Lancaster, the B-26 cost more than twice as much as the Wellignton, etc.


Seriously, I don't see how RR could have charged less than half as much for an engine that was built largely by hand versus one that was built on a modern production line.

That's where you are going wrong. RR didn't hand build Merlins during the war.

Rolls Royce certainly hand built engines pre war, in the days when the entire British aero engine industry built about 2,500 engines a year. With such low numbers it wasn't worth investing in massive amounts of tooling.

But that all changed when it became clear war was on the way, and far more aircraft engines would be needed. Rolls Royce added another factory at Crewe, using less skilled labour than they had at Derby. Then they built another plant at Glasgow that was designed to use extensive mass production and largely unskilled labour. They also redesigned the Merlin for mass production outside the aircraft industry, and Ford UK built them at its Manchester plant. (Ford actually produced engines for about half what Rolls Royce charged, but they made a much more limited range of models, and I suspect only single stage engines)

In 1936 2,248 aero engines were built in Britain. By 1938 it had doubled to 5,431, it more than doubled to 12,499 in 1939, doubled again to 24,000 in 1940 and again to 54,000 in 1942.

Look at those figures again. In 6 years aero engine production went from 2,248 a year to 54,000, a 25 fold increase. You think they didn't increase the amount of automation?

The main reasons for cost differences, I suspect, were higher labour rates in the US, and the fact that the British government imposed strict profit controls on industry.


What is your source for those numbers?

Industry and Airpower by Sebastian Ritchie.

WTE_Galway
07-29-2008, 08:06 PM
In 1936 2,248 aero engines were built in Britain. By 1938 it had doubled to 5,431, it more than doubled to 12,499 in 1939, doubled again to 24,000 in 1940 and again to 54,000 in 1942.


There certainly were an amazing number of those things kicking about when I was a kid. I vividly recall in the early 70's visiting a scrap metal place that was wrecking aircraft for metal salvage and they had at least a dozen griffons and merlins sitting in a shed, probably more. When we asked the guy what they were for, he said he sold them to boat racing people.

There was also a compete ex-RAAF Vulcan bomber sitting behind the main shed which had been there a few years and was apparently flyable when he tendered for it. He said it was too good to wreck but I have no idea what he intended to do with the thing.

Kurfurst__
07-30-2008, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Must have been the horrible Pound-to-Dollar exchange rate back then.

The exchange rate has little bearing, as both prices are in pounds.


That, or licensing fees paid to RR.

Unlikely. The same ratio is maintained in a great deal of US production, for example the B-17 cost roughly twice as much as the Lancaster, the B-26 cost more than twice as much as the Wellignton, etc.


Seriously, I don't see how RR could have charged less than half as much for an engine that was built largely by hand versus one that was built on a modern production line.

That's where you are going wrong. RR didn't hand build Merlins during the war.

Rolls Royce certainly hand built engines pre war, in the days when the entire British aero engine industry built about 2,500 engines a year. With such low numbers it wasn't worth investing in massive amounts of tooling.

But that all changed when it became clear war was on the way, and far more aircraft engines would be needed. Rolls Royce added another factory at Crewe, using less skilled labour than they had at Derby. Then they built another plant at Glasgow that was designed to use extensive mass production and largely unskilled labour. They also redesigned the Merlin for mass production outside the aircraft industry, and Ford UK built them at its Manchester plant. (Ford actually produced engines for about half what Rolls Royce charged, but they made a much more limited range of models, and I suspect only single stage engines)

In 1936 2,248 aero engines were built in Britain. By 1938 it had doubled to 5,431, it more than doubled to 12,499 in 1939, doubled again to 24,000 in 1940 and again to 54,000 in 1942.

Look at those figures again. In 6 years aero engine production went from 2,248 a year to 54,000, a 25 fold increase. You think they didn't increase the amount of automation?

The main reasons for cost differences, I suspect, were higher labour rates in the US, and the fact that the British government imposed strict profit controls on industry.


What is your source for those numbers?

Industry and Airpower by Sebastian Ritchie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently this book was written with the intent to refute the position of another scholar, Corelli Bernett. Bernett`s thesis is that the decline of British aero industry begun in the 1930s. Sebastian Ritchie wishes to refute this thesis, and arrives on the exact opposite conclusion, which likely means the book was not without the rosy pink glass being on, and some liberal use of statistics, especially if its coming through via Hop, who often (always?) shows similar symptoms . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3116321

2-3 times the price for the same engine, especially with American experience with mass production and conveyor lines - it reads hogwash to me.

In any case, throwing around two numbers, without knowing what conversion rates were used (which varied greatly during the war, and could result in an error with the factor of 1.5 to 2), without knowing what was included in this price and what not (costs of running in the engine, some sort of guarantee, servicing etc., shipping costs from the US to UK, wheter it was understood for the bare engine block, or did it included items that would have been manufactured by other manufacturers - carburettors, for example, were produced by Bendix.)

WOLFMondo
07-30-2008, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Apparently this book was written with the intent to refute the position of another scholar, Corelli Bernett. Bernett`s thesis is that the decline of British aero industry begun in the 1930s. Sebastian Ritchie wishes to refute this thesis, and arrives on the exact opposite conclusion

Probably means its somewhere in between then! Its quite similar to the British car industry but unlike that the government made some better choices so BAE exists today as one of the biggest defense companies today and RR is still very strong.

I wouldn't say during the war there was decline until near the end when post war planning was being thought out and projects started to be cut. Even a declining industry still managed to put out aircraft like the Vampire, Hunter, Buccaneer, Vulcan and Lightning.

hop2002
07-30-2008, 06:33 AM
You can get some idea of the efficiency of the British aircraft industry by comparing it to the German aircraft industry:
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4405/aircraftproduction6eg2.jpg
Bear in mind these figures are for 1940 and 1941, when it was Britain being heavily bombed, not Germany, and before the large influx of slaves in to the German aircraft industry.

The production differences continued throughout the war. Employment in the German aircraft industry hit 1.85 million in 1941. (I only have airframe plant employee numbers for later in the war, they continued to increase, from 300,000 in 1941 to 545,000 in 1944). Employment in the British aircraft industry peaked at 1.678 million in 1943, well below the German level in 1941, yet Britain produced more aircraft, more engines, and a much greater weight of aircraft than Germany. They didn't do that without large amounts of mass production.

Edit: It seems there were no licence fees charged to Packard for producing the Merlin during the war. Hives (rolls Royce) wrote to the minister of aircraft production in 1943:


We are not raising here any question in regard to design rights as, after discussion with Contracts Dept at Harrogate in February 1941, it was considered best to leave this until after the war...

We consider it a matter of greatest importance to this Company, and even to the British government, that the manufacture of our products in America or elsewhere after the war be controllable, and that we are in a favourable position negotiate terms should either of the firms now manufacturing wish to continue to do so in the future.

Kurfurst__
07-30-2008, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
You can get some idea of the efficiency of the British aircraft industry by comparing it to the German aircraft industry:
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4405/aircraftproduction6eg2.jpg
Bear in mind these figures are for 1940 and 1941, when it was Britain being heavily bombed, not Germany, and before the large influx of slaves in to the German aircraft industry.

Yes yes, one of your old stories about Britain/RAF/Bomber Command doing everything more efficiently, bombed more accurately, flew more sorties etc. etc., compared Germany, the States, the USAAF the Luftwaffe. Same old boring stories from the same predictable person. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As to the efficiency claims, I wonder how you arrived at your conclusions. Your tables do not show the true measurement of working efficiency, labour hours spent and products build by major type. It would be revealing. They only show how many people were employed, without detailing how many were in active production, or passive production, and how many hours they had to work a week.

In 1940 the large boost in British aircraft production numbers came from the fact they - being defeated on the continent and forced back on the defense of their very own turf - begun to concentrated on cheap, easy-to-build fighters - a somewhat analogue situation to that of Germany, 1944. In particular most of the fighter airframe weight was made up by Hurricanes, which were although considerably heavier than contemporary 109s, partly because they represented a much more backward building technology of steel tubes and canvas covering. Similiarly, an empty twin engined Wellington would weight almost a ton more than a comparable twin engined Heinkel.

Britain in 1940 was also a subject of a life or death struggle, and all the country's resources were mobilised for war. In Germany factory workers continued to work the regular 40-odd hours, five days a week, 8 hours a day. This remained true until 1943, where the Germans pulled out their other hand behind their back, when it become clear that the country Germany was in an easy situation, having neutralised all threats to her and not subject to any such dire measures that were taken in Britain; the country was effectively operated a peacetime economy. There was no pressing need for them to see aircraft factory workers to work in 10 and 12 hour shifts, and also in the weekend, as in Britain in 1940. They could also concentrate on aircraft types meant for attacking role, i.e. bombers. Funnily enough, airframe weight produced in 1940, is 'missing' from your tables for this period.

To illustrate with an example, 10 workers in Factory A are building in 12 hour shifts on all 7 days, for a total of 840 hours a single fighter airframe from steel tubes and canvas wrapped around it, with partial aluminium skin, weighting 1300 kg.

We also have Factory B, where 10 workers, as in Factory A, are on the paylist. They are producing a single fighter in a week, just as in Factory A, but in 8 hour shifts on all 5 days for a total of 400 hours (i.e. less than half the time required). The single fighter airframe they eventually finish is an all-metal cantilever construction, and a result of its more advanced design it is lighter, takes less materials, and weights only 1000 kg.

Factory A produced, with 10 workers, 1 airframe, 1300 kg airframe weight, in 840 labour hours.
Factory B produced, with 10 workers, 1 airframe, 1000 kg airframe weight, in 400 labour hours.

QUESTION: Which factory is more efficient?

Hops answer is that it is the factory that produces one unit of a more backward, less technology-intensive and lesser performance product and it takes them twice the time, because, after all, there are only 10 workers in both factories, and Factory A produced 30% greater airframe weight.

In reality, this was the case in 1940. British factories produced mostly fighters, heavier than the oppisition because they were produced with a technology from the biplane era, and it took them a lot more time to produce a single Hurricane or Wellington than to produce a similar Bf 109 or He 111. A Spitfire required 15 000 labour hours to complete, a Hurricane 10 000; a Bf 109E, on the other hand, could be finished in a total of just about 5000 hours.

Curiously, the Germans did some estimations and in fact found that they could produce a Spitfire (in a German factory, with their methods of production organisation, tooling etc.) in about the same time as a 109. At that point you begun to wonder how, with all that greater efficiency stuff claimed by Hop, it can be possible to build the same aircraft in one-third the time in one country compared to another.

Benjamin Disraeli said once: there are lies, damned lies and statistics. He meant that it is easy to use statistics to show what you wish others to believe. Hop is very fond of using statistics this way.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-30-2008, 09:08 AM
with their methods of production organisation

That one covers a multitude of sins doesn't it?

As for bending statistics to suit an agenda... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

M4Sherman4
07-30-2008, 10:48 AM
no it did not win WW2.

mostl engines like the" Klimov VK-107A" , "Shvetsov ASh-82" and the Wright R-1820-97 "Cyclone"

Aaron_GT
07-30-2008, 11:22 AM
Must have been the horrible Pound-to-Dollar exchange rate back then. That, or licensing fees paid to RR. Shady

RR tried to impose these post war (Britain was broke) which is why the second version of the F-82 went back to Allison engines (15 mph penalty, but it was already a very fast piston plane).

M_Gunz
07-30-2008, 06:04 PM
That's the kind of cheap shot characterization we used to see so much of; Britain


begun to concentrated on cheap, easy-to-build fighters

Yeah uh-huh, sure. What was produced had nothing to do with the state of business and the
tooling, training and facilities at the time that Herr Hitler forced events. OH NO, it was
a decision of Britain itself as if all that could be changed in no time flat!

Well, I guess you'd have to actually work in production to know better or maybe just not
have a F'd-Up and hateful attitude to not play that game.

Those same British also produced the Spitfire which was not cheap or easy to build, but when
the whole exercise is in playing at debate then proportion goes right out the window in favor
of reducing to absurdity the argument of the other even at cost of doing the same to your own.

The made Hurricanes the way they did because changing over would have meant many fewer planes,
not because of some ingrained love of producing second rate warplanes. Well those Hurricanes
were used to shoot a whole lot of German planes down. And as we all know, it's not the plane
that makes the real difference in combat, hehehe.
I guess that leaves question as to who had the better fighter pilot schools if you really
want to play the spin game so badly.. well poorly perhaps.

I like the touch about how the German workers didn't go OT until 1943 too -- in a country that
utilised slave labor. Was this for just why? Right, it can only be that they were not really
trying just to give the enemy a break and not because of anything else. Tell me another one,
I'm not ready to go to sleep yet!

WTE_Galway
07-30-2008, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:


I guess that leaves question as to who had the better fighter pilot schools if you really
want to play the spin game so badly.. well poorly perhaps.


Actually both sides were aware a war was likely and both sides had schemes to train pilots early. In Germany for example many Hitler youth spent a lot of time in gliders.

The British from the late thirties had a scheme whereby you could join any of the empire air forces and train for a year after which you were released but on call for active duty if the need arose. Which it soon did.

jarink
07-30-2008, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
Must have been the horrible Pound-to-Dollar exchange rate back then. That, or licensing fees paid to RR. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Man, some of you guys really don't know how to take a joke! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Why'd you think I put the smiley at the end? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Originally posted by hop2002:
That's where you are going wrong. RR didn't hand build Merlins during the war.

Rolls Royce certainly hand built engines pre war, in the days when the entire British aero engine industry built about 2,500 engines a year. With such low numbers it wasn't worth investing in massive amounts of tooling.

But that all changed when it became clear war was on the way, and far more aircraft engines would be needed. Rolls Royce added another factory at Crewe, using less skilled labour than they had at Derby. Then they built another plant at Glasgow that was designed to use extensive mass production and largely unskilled labour. They also redesigned the Merlin for mass production outside the aircraft industry, and Ford UK built them at its Manchester plant. (Ford actually produced engines for about half what Rolls Royce charged, but they made a much more limited range of models, and I suspect only single stage engines)

In 1936 2,248 aero engines were built in Britain. By 1938 it had doubled to 5,431, it more than doubled to 12,499 in 1939, doubled again to 24,000 in 1940 and again to 54,000 in 1942.

Look at those figures again. In 6 years aero engine production went from 2,248 a year to 54,000, a 25 fold increase. You think they didn't increase the amount of automation?

The main reasons for cost differences, I suspect, were higher labour rates in the US, and the fact that the British government imposed strict profit controls on industry.

....

Industry and Airpower by Sebastian Ritchie.

I understand that they weren't built entirely by hand like some of RR's cars. I'm not that ignorant. My understanding is that there was still a lot of hand-fitting of parts involved in RR's production lines, though I don't have a handy link to where I've read that (I know I've read it from multiple sources, though).

Thank you for providing your source of information. That certainly helps in figuring out what's what.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Blutarski2004
07-31-2008, 06:29 AM
Kurfurst,

Taking the 1941 production figures for comparison -

[1] According to the data presented, Britain delivered 20,094 a/c with an aggregate airframe weight of 87 million pounds. Germany delivered 11,776 a/c with an aggregate airframe weight of 68 million pounds. Doing the math, the average weight of a British airframe was 4,330 lbs versus an average German airframe weight of 5,774 lbs. Unless I'm missing something, it appears that the average British a/c coming off the production line was lighter than its German counterpart.

[2] Britain produced 1.82 engines for each a/c built. Germany produced 1.90 engines for each a/c built. Reasonably close from a statistical point of view. If the stated sizes of the respective labor forces include workers employed in both the a/c and a/c engine manufacturing industries, as the chart IMO implies, then it is possible to make the following comparison.

1,850,000 German workers, averaging one 8-hour daily shift over 250 days of work for the year, represent a maximum possible overall labor effort (ignoring absenteeism) of 3.7 billion hours to produce 11,776 a/c and 22,400 engines - i.e., a factor of approx 3.142 statistical work units for every production unit of one a/c plus 1.9 engines. British industry employed 1,259,400 workers to produce 20,094 a/c plus 36,551 engines. Calculating again on the basis of 250 days of work effort for the year, each British worker would have had to labor approximately 20 hours per day (2.5 work shifts per day) to achieve a performance in terms of statistical work unit efficiency similar to that displayed by German industry.

Clearly this could not have been the case. Therefore the figures suggest that the British aircraft industry, at least in 1941, was performing more efficiently by a respectable margin.

hop2002
07-31-2008, 07:53 AM
That margin continued throughout the war. The British aircraft employed less workers than the Germans every single year of the war. They produced more aircraft, more engines, and more aircraft by weight.

More production figures:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1684/aircraftproduction12fp3.jpg

Aircraft engine production (thousands):

Year - UK - Germany
1939 - 12 - 4 (probably only September onwards)
1940 - 24 - 16
1941 - 37 - 22
1942 - 54 - 37
1943 - 58 - 51
1944 - 57 - 55


Curiously, the Germans did some estimations and in fact found that they could produce a Spitfire (in a German factory, with their methods of production organisation, tooling etc.) in about the same time as a 109. At that point you begun to wonder how, with all that greater efficiency stuff claimed by Hop, it can be possible to build the same aircraft in one-third the time in one country compared to another.

Source please.


My understanding is that there was still a lot of hand-fitting of parts involved in RR's production lines, though I don't have a handy link to where I've read that (I know I've read it from multiple sources, though).


Typically accounts talk of how Rolls Royce hand built engines, and Packard had to redesign the Merlin for mass production. I wouldn't put much store by any account that claimed that, as it ignores the fact Rolls Royce redesigned the Merlin for production by a car plant (Ford in Manchester) in 1940.

Kettenhunde
07-31-2008, 08:26 AM
Clearly this could not have been the case. Therefore the figures suggest that the British aircraft industry, at least in 1941, was performing more efficiently by a respectable margin.

The British Aircraft Industry was extremely efficient right from the beginning of the war.

This is due to some very farsighted planning during the intra-war years. Despite the popular characterization of the intra war British Government, there were men in the British Government that saw war with Germany as an inevitability almost before the ink on the Versailles treaty was dry.

By the time the Battle of Britain came about, the British aircraft industry had tripled its production and exceeded the programs pre-war quotas.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/464/bobproductionzs0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/464/bobproductionzs0.f926541e10.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=413&i=bobproductionzs0.jpg)

This is why the RAF was able to almost double the numbers of Squadrons in service as well as increase the size of each squadron during the battle.

If you are interested in the political maneuvering during the rearmament of Germany I highly recommend:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-U-Boat-War/David-Westwood/e/9781932033434


Although it concentrates on the German Navy it very much highlights the fight for resources among the German Armed Forces and the effect of European Politics. IMHO much of the success of the Nazi party at rearming Germany has as much to do with France and England's squabbling rivalry as Nazi Boldness.

All the Best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
07-31-2008, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
That margin continued throughout the war. The British aircraft employed less workers than the Germans every single year of the war.

Is that so? How many workers did the British aero industry employ in 1942,1943, 1944? I am not sure I have seen figures for that from you yet.

What counts as 'employed' and what counts as 'aero industry'? For example, does a worker in an aluminium mill, that makes aluminium sheets for RAF heavy bombers, count as 'employed by the aero industry'? Does a dockworker in Southampton, unloading American 100 octane fuel from a Liberty ship, on which Bomber Command run in view of the lack of domestic refinery capacity, count as a worker for the aviation industry? Are aero engine industry workers included, or only airframe manufacturers?


They produced more aircraft, more engines, and more aircraft by weight.

Not according to the figures you posted. For example in 1943, the British produced 26 243 aircraft, the Germans 24 800, which is practically the same. In 1944, the Germans vastly outproduced the British, despite heavy bombing, with 39 807 aircraft against 26 461. It would appear to me, that after Germans gave up the luxury of 8 hour shifts and the tabu of working 7 days a week, they quickly caught up with the British output and even outproduced by a factor of two within a year, despite the heaviest bombings.

And in 1939 or 1940, it was certainly not true in airframe weight either, save the problematic part as to, as explained above, that it is difficult to understand why building a Hurricane, even if it uses a more simplistic and obsolete building practice, in twice the labour hour needed compared to a 109, would translate to higher worker 'efficiency'..



Originally posted by hop2002:
More production figures:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1684/aircraftproduction12fp3.jpg

That one is interesting, too. As Disraeli would say: More lies, more damned lies, more statistics.

Ie. average airframe weight of an aircraft (airframe weight produced / no. of aircraft produced).

Average airframe weight of an aircraft produced in that year

1940:

UK: 3920 lbs
D : 5774 lbs (extrapolated from '41, though this could be worked out from USSBS though, if one has a lot of spare time like Hop)

1941:

UK: 4329 lbs
D : 5774 lbs

1942:

UK: 5618 lbs
D : 6230 lbs

1943:

UK: 7044 lbs
D : 5724 lbs

1944:

UK: 7860 lbs
D : 4396 lbs

Its interesting how it goes in a full circle. Early in the war, the British are desperate and attempt to build lightweight, not so labour-intensive fighter in great number. The Germans build on avarage larger, more complicated machines. For example, a Ju 88, after the 100th example, still took about 4.5-5 times as many labour hours to be finished than a FW 190, altough the airframe weight difference is not so great. The ratio was similar even after the 1000th example that was produced, though the time to build one decreased to about half, as the workers and managers become more familiar with the production of a specific plane. The trend, that the Germans are building the more labour intensive, complex, offensive-minded mulitengined machines seems to reverse during 1943.

Of course there are some distortion in the statistics, too: the German figures are from the USSBS, which assumes the same airframe weight for specific, generic models through the war, even though a FW 190A-1 was a very different beast than a FW 190A-8. Thus there is a fair margin of error involved. As to how the British airframe weight figures were arrived at, and wheter they are compatible at all as to how the USSBS counted German aiframe weight, is anyone`s guess.

Naturally, patriotic figures do not bother themselves with such trivialities and details.


Originally posted by hop2002:
In 1940, as the previous tables show, the Germans outp

Aircraft engine production (thousands):

Year - UK - Germany
1939 - 12 - 4 (probably only September onwards)
1940 - 24 - 16
1941 - 37 - 22
1942 - 54 - 37
1943 - 58 - 51
1944 - 57 - 55

It would appear to me, that after 1942, after German industry mobilised for war, the Germans produced a similiar number of engines as the British, despite the USAAF bombings were begin to take an effect and they directly aimed at the German aero industry bottlenecks.

Of course this is only half the story, since while the air force was the sole mean for the British to strike back at the Germans somehow, it received priority in manpower and resources. In Germany, the army was the no 1 priority, and the most important client of the 3 arms of the Wehrmacht. Consequently, while Britain's main output was aircraft, while it was severely outproduced in terms of artillery, tanks etc. Looking at the sad state of domestic British tank development and production, lack of suitable tank engine availability, or the shortage of two-staged Merlin engines that limited the introduction of newer types does put things in context: companies that are overburdened with satisfying Bomber Command`s hunger numerous, but simple single stage engines have little capacity to produce advanced tank or fighter engines.


Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Curiously, the Germans did some estimations and in fact found that they could produce a Spitfire (in a German factory, with their methods of production organisation, tooling etc.) in about the same time as a 109. At that point you begun to wonder how, with all that greater efficiency stuff claimed by Hop, it can be possible to build the same aircraft in one-third the time in one country compared to another.

Source please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The working of your mind is a mystery to me; it puzzles me often how can it be that you actively participate in a discussions where this German report is mentioned, and become very delighted with it, and even quote it on several discussion boards, quoting - with some liberty taken of course - and then suddenly WHOOPS, there is a blackout and you do not seem to remember a thing, scratch your head and wonder what could be the source of this you have quoted so many times before yourself...

The human mind is a wonderful maze, is it not? Memories come and go in a seemingly random fashion, but I am sure that deep below, there is some kind of pattern to be found.

M_Gunz
07-31-2008, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:


I guess that leaves question as to who had the better fighter pilot schools if you really
want to play the spin game so badly.. well poorly perhaps.


Actually both sides were aware a war was likely and both sides had schemes to train pilots early. In Germany for example many Hitler youth spent a lot of time in gliders.

The British from the late thirties had a scheme whereby you could join any of the empire air forces and train for a year after which you were released but on call for active duty if the need arose. Which it soon did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the US had a strong pilot training program on as well, as did Russia.

However that's pilot training, not fighter combat training right?

If you have the better fighter pilot schools than say the people who want to attack in better
planes then you still might just hold them off, LOL!

It's that or claim that your people just make better fighter pilots which I wouldn't go so far.

I'm just poking holes in the tissue of someone's rhetoric is all. When something makes the
kind of sense behind that kind of story then it's certain that a whole lot is being ignored.

Kurfurst__
07-31-2008, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Kurfurst,

Taking the 1941 production figures for comparison -

[1] According to the data presented, Britain delivered 20,094 a/c with an aggregate airframe weight of 87 million pounds. Germany delivered 11,776 a/c with an aggregate airframe weight of 68 million pounds. Doing the math, the average weight of a British airframe was 4,330 lbs versus an average German airframe weight of 5,774 lbs. Unless I'm missing something, it appears that the average British a/c coming off the production line was lighter than its German counterpart.

... we know it was not the case. Certainly the Spitfire and Hurricane, being fitted with a same sized engine of similiar weight, similiar armor, fuel etc. carried, was heavier than the Bf 109, and this would indicate their airframes were heavier as well.

Overall it indicates that the British industry, in 1941, produced a higher percentage of light units (i.e. fighter), and consequently a lower percentage of heavy units (ie. bombers, twin engined fighters), than the German.


[2] Britain produced 1.82 engines for each a/c built. Germany produced 1.90 engines for each a/c built. Reasonably close from a statistical point of view. If the stated sizes of the respective labor forces include workers employed in both the a/c and a/c engine manufacturing industries, as the chart IMO implies, then it is possible to make the following comparison.

1,850,000 German workers, averaging one 8-hour daily shift over 250 days of work for the year, represent a maximum possible overall labor effort (ignoring absenteeism) of 3.7 billion hours to produce 11,776 a/c and 22,400 engines - i.e., a factor of approx 3.142 statistical work units for every production unit of one a/c plus 1.9 engines. British industry employed 1,259,400 workers to produce 20,094 a/c plus 36,551 engines. Calculating again on the basis of 250 days of work effort for the year, each British worker would have had to labor approximately 20 hours per day (2.5 work shifts per day) to achieve a performance in terms of statistical work unit efficiency similar to that displayed by German industry.

Clearly this could not have been the case. Therefore the figures suggest that the British aircraft industry, at least in 1941, was performing more efficiently by a respectable margin.

The problem is that there are no figures for labour hours spent, nor there is any breakdown as to the amount of workers employed by the British industry, what was counted and, what is missing. Work-week in Britain was not of the same lenght as in Germany either. If the figures are not comparable, there`s no valid comparison between the two.

For example, the 1.8 million figure of the German aero industry, how many of them working in airframe assembly plants, and how many in associated industry (optics, electronics, bord weapons, engine manufacturers etc.)? How many are 'active' workers, ie. actually building airframes, and how many are employed passively/indirectly (ie. clerks, administration, engineers)? Do we count French aero industry workers as 'German', even though French plants did very little actual production, though they were involved to some extent in repairs and maintenance work?

For example, according to USSBS, as of October 1944, there were a grand total of 396,972 workers employed by German Airframe Plants: 154,336 directly, 202,025 indirectly employed by parent & dispersal Plants, 29,210 directly, 11,401 indirectly by sub contractors.

Its an oversimplification of a very complex subject.

Xiolablu3
07-31-2008, 01:31 PM
Not sure how this affects the figures, but dont forget that Germany also employed slave labour to produce aircraft.

It wasnt just German citizens in factories producing, I wouldnt be surprised if most of the slave labour production was missing from the numbers in an attempt to cover it up.

I have read that a lot of the Me262 and He162 production for example was done by Forced labour.

Anyone know how prevalent slave labour was for building aircraft throught he war years in Germany?

Blutarski2004
07-31-2008, 08:15 PM
Kurfurst,

Sorry, but your argument makes sense only if we assume that the originator of the cited statistics was either incompetent or intellectually dishonest.

I'm not ready to go there unless you can demonstrate errors in his data.

KrashanTopolova
07-31-2008, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Kurfurst,

Sorry, but your argument makes sense only if we assume that the originator of the cited statistics was either incompetent or intellectually dishonest.

I'm not ready to go there unless you can demonstrate errors in his data.

Neither can the inference be made that the average British airframe was lighter than the German simply on aggregate total weight of airframe production. Examples of real life perturbances to statistical theory include:

1. the fact that the BF109 was the most produced fighter of the war; meaning in reality the lightest aircraft made up the bulk of German aircraft (include the FW190 if you wish)

2. Hitler personally had a hand in designating aircraft roles eg Me-262 as a bomber only. Those two underwing engines were always an inefficient design for a fighter role but they negated the need for a heavier bomber airframe.

3. In the end the German aircraft factories were probably bombed out of production even given the imprecision of bombing methods in those days. That was not the likely case for Britain.

Kurfurst__
08-01-2008, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Kurfurst,

Sorry, but your argument makes sense only if we assume that the originator of the cited statistics was either incompetent or intellectually dishonest.

I'm not ready to go there unless you can demonstrate errors in his data.

Simple fact is that the tables has been built from two seperate pieces of data. German figures are from the USSBS, the British figures are from Overy, and the table has been prepeared by a third person.

Chances are that the two datasets are incompatible in their methods of count. Moreover they do not shed any light on the amount of labour (work hours) used for making the products.

If you wish, you may ignore the obvious and presume they are compatible.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
08-01-2008, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Not sure how this affects the figures, but dont forget that Germany also employed slave labour to produce aircraft.

It wasnt just German citizens in factories producing, I wouldnt be surprised if most of the slave labour production was missing from the numbers in an attempt to cover it up.

I have read that a lot of the Me262 and He162 production for example was done by Forced labour.

Anyone know how prevalent slave labour was for building aircraft throught he war years in Germany?

Companies Affiliated With Concentration Camps
From "Chronique de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, eds Chronique 1990. Annexe 3 page 690. Scan for the famous companies both inside and outside of Germany, including the U.S.

Industry in the Third Reich and the work-force of deportees:

In CAP-s is given the company name
* -denotes the name of the Camp, followed by the name of the town or location where the work was done.

ADLER SA
*Natzwiller-Struthof
Frankfurt-Am-Main

AEG
*Stutthof
Thorn-Torun
*Riga-Kaiserwald

ASTRA
*Flossenburg
Chemnitz

AUTO-UNION
*Flossenburg
Hohenstein-Ernstthal
Zschopau
Zwickau

BMW
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Abteroda
Eisenach-Thuer
*Dachau
Ellach
Blaichach
Kaufbeuren
Lochhausen
Moosach
*Natzwiller-Struthof
Geisenheim
*Papenburg
Rastdorf-am-Werlte
*Sachsenhausen
Konigswusterhausen

MESSERSCHMITT
*Dachau
Asbach-Baumerheim
Augsburg
Augsburg-Pfersee
Burgau
Durach-Kottern
Fischen
Gablingen
Horgau-Pfersee
Kaufering
Moosach
*Flossenburg
Joanngergenstadt
*Mauthausen
Camp Central

METALL UNION
Auschwitz-Oswiecim
Camp Central

OPTA RADIO
*Flossenburg
Wolkenburg

OPTIQUE IENA
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Weimar-Fischtenheim

PHOTO AGFA
*Dachau
Munich

PUCH
*Mauthausen
Graz

RHEINMETALL BORSIG AG
*Buchenwald and Dora Mittelbau
Dusseldorf

SHELL
*Neuengamme
Hamburg
Geilenburgh

SCHNEIDER
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Leipzig-Lindenthal
Meuselwitz
Raucha

SIEMENS
*Auschwitz-Oswiecim
Bobrek
Trostberg

DAIMLER BENZ
*Schirmeck (At the Rhine)
Haslach

DORNIER
*Dachau
Aufkirch-Kaufbeuren
Kaufering
Trutzkirch-Titzing

ERLA
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Thekla/Leipzig
Leipzig-Lindenthal
*Flossenburg
Mulchen-Psankt-Micheln

FORD
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Cologne Fordwerke

GOLDSCHMITT
*Gross-Rosen
Langenbielau-Bielwa

HEINKEL
*Buchenwald and Dora - Mittelbau
Gandersheim
*Mauthausen
Wien-Schwechat
*Natzwiller-Struthof (at the Rhine)
Zuffenhausen
*Ravensbruck
Barth/Ostsee
*Berlin-Shonefeld
*Rostock-Marienehe
*Schwarzenforst
*Sachsenhausen
Oranienburg

I.G. FARBEN INDUSTRIES
*Auschwitz-Oswiecim
Camp Central
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Wolfen-Bitterfeld
*Gross-Rosen
Waldenburg

JUNKERS
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Aschersleben
Helberstadt
Tarthun

KRUPP
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Essen
*Gross-Rosen
Langenbielau-Bielawa
Markstadt-Laskowitz
*Flossenburg
Nuremberg
*Ravensbruck
Camp Central
*Furstenberg
*Neubranbdenburg

OLVAY
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Bernburg

STEYR
*Mauthausen
Aflens
Steyr-Municholz
*Radom

TELEFUNKEN
*Gross-Rosen
Langenbielau-Bielawa

VALENTIN
*Neuengamme
Brema-Farge

VISTRA
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Wolfen-Bitterfeld

VOLKSWAGEN
*Neuegamme
Fallersleben
Wolfsburg

ZEISS-IKON
*Flossenburg
Dresden

ZEITZ
*Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau
Gleina "Willy"

ZEPPELIN
*Dachau
Friedrichshaven

================================================== ==============================================

Publication Number: M1935
Publication Title: Concentration Camp Flossenbürg Inmate Entry Registers, 1938–1945
Date Published: 2004


Flossenbürg was established in May 1938 as a relatively small concentration camp, located in northeastern Bavaria near the Czech frontier and situated close to rock quarries, which were regularly worked by the inmates. With time the camp expanded, so that by war's end approximately 94,200 prisoners, including 16,000 females, were imprisoned there or in its numerous outcamps at some time from 1938 to April 1945. In addition to German prisoners, inmates included Russian, Polish, French, Czech, Italian, Greek, Danish, Norwegian, British, Canadian, and American nationals, as well as Jews of all nationalities, some Allied prisoners of war (POWs), deserters from the German Armed Forces (Wehrmacht), and common criminals. Many of the prisoners at Flossenbürg were employed at the Messerschmitt factory that was established within the camp in 1942. The camp was liberated by American forces on April 23, 1945. An estimated 30,000 inmates perished over the course of the camp's history, including German resistance figures Wilhelm Canaris and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

================================================== ==============================================

Messerschmitt himself was convicted of using slave labour and served a prison sentence.

Kurfurst__
08-01-2008, 02:40 AM
This should be interesting.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/British_WW2aircraft_prod.jpg

The priority for lightweight fighters and trainers through the war is noticable.

stathem
08-01-2008, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
This should be interesting.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/British_WW2aircraft_prod.jpg

The priority for lightweight fighters and trainers through the war is noticable.

Not really. How about you present that as a clustered column chart instead of a stacked chart. Makes it easier to compare and contrast.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
08-01-2008, 03:42 AM
HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR
UNITED KINGDOM CIVIL SERIES
Edited by W. K. HANCOCK
BRITISH WAR PRODUCTION
By M. M. Postan

Fellow of Peterhouse, Professor of Economic History in the University of Cambridge

LONDON 1952
HMSO

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/index.html


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/capture_01082008_101527.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/capture_01082008_101558.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/capture_01082008_101603.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/capture_01082008_101607.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/capture_01082008_101613.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/capture_01082008_101617.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/capture_01082008_101622.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/capture_01082008_101648.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/capture_01082008_101653.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Il2/capture_01082008_101720.jpg

No41Sqn_Banks
08-01-2008, 03:42 AM
Something like this:
http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2007/09/images/british-aircraft-production-02.gif

Get more infos here:
http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2007/09/br...uction-1938-1944.htm (http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2007/09/british-aircraft-production-1938-1944.htm)

http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2007/09/ro...ent-programme-01.htm (http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2007/09/royal-air-force-rearmament-programme-01.htm)

One question: What is that "british two engined fighter"? Does Beaufighter and Mosquito count as a fighter?

Blutarski2004
08-01-2008, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Kurfurst,

Sorry, but your argument makes sense only if we assume that the originator of the cited statistics was either incompetent or intellectually dishonest.

I'm not ready to go there unless you can demonstrate errors in his data.

Neither can the inference be made that the average British airframe was lighter than the German simply on aggregate total weight of airframe production. Examples of real life perturbances to statistical theory include:

1. the fact that the BF109 was the most produced fighter of the war; meaning in reality the lightest aircraft made up the bulk of German aircraft (include the FW190 if you wish)

2. Hitler personally had a hand in designating aircraft roles eg Me-262 as a bomber only. Those two underwing engines were always an inefficient design for a fighter role but they negated the need for a heavier bomber airframe.

3. In the end the German aircraft factories were probably bombed out of production even given the imprecision of bombing methods in those days. That was not the likely case for Britain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... First, please remember that I discussed only the 1941 figures. Second, Kurfurst's argument was that the British were building a lot of heavy old-fashioned designs, while the Germans were building modern lightweight designs. I simply pointed out that the cited data no not support that conclusion. What Kurfurst needs to do is provide some data on the a/c mix that German built in the 1941 production year. If the German production included a materially larger percentage of bomber a/c in 1941, then his argument about relative weights of a/c designs may have some merit. Until then, There is no evidence to support Kurfurst's argument.

Blutarski2004
08-01-2008, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Kurfurst,

Sorry, but your argument makes sense only if we assume that the originator of the cited statistics was either incompetent or intellectually dishonest.

I'm not ready to go there unless you can demonstrate errors in his data.

Simple fact is that the tables has been built from two seperate pieces of data. German figures are from the USSBS, the British figures are from Overy, and the table has been prepeared by a third person.

Chances are that the two datasets are incompatible in their methods of count. Moreover they do not shed any light on the amount of labour (work hours) used for making the products.

If you wish, you may ignore the obvious and presume they are compatible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The fact that the data were assembled from several sources (hardly unavoidable, since the process involved a comparison of British versus German industries) does not by any means make it "obvious" that they are flawed. The plain fact of the matter is that you cannot know whether they are flawed or not unless you are aware of the filtering and interpretation processes applied by the author. It is you yourself who are taking the position (i.e. - presuming) that the data are flawed without offering any supporting proof beyond your personal opinion.

I'm certainly willing to accept any reasonable proofs to support your position, if you will present some.

On another point, arguing relative industrial efficiency based upon the number of man-hours required to build a particular a/c model is spurious. While it is an important and useful component in overall manufacturing efficiency, it is far from being the decisive factor. In 1941, Britain produced nearly twice as many a/c as Germany with only two-thirds the work force. Unless you can specifically demonstrate that the production and employment data are dramatically flawed, the bottom line still appears to me to favor Britain in 1941.

According to the USSBS report, Germany's 1941 production broke down by type as follows:

3732 (32 pct) Fighters
4350 (37 pct) Bombers
3694 (31 pct) Transports, Trainers, other types
-------
11776 (100 pct)


According the UK data, British 1941 production by type was:

7064 (35 pct) Fighters
4668 (23 pct) Bombers
8362 (42 pct) Transports, Trainers, other types
-------
20094 (100 pct)


The picture that emerges is that Britain produced almost 2x the fighters, nearly the same number of bombers, and more than 2x the number of miscellaneous a/c type in the same time period with two-thirds the work force. It's clear that, in 1941 at least, the British a/c industry was operating more efficiently.

In fairness, I must point out that the different production mix (German production = 1/3 bombers versus 1/4 for British production) likely explains the slightly higher average German airframe weight for 1941.

Xiolablu3
08-01-2008, 03:42 PM
Didnt Hitler refuse to put the German economy onto a Total War 'system' until around 1944?

From the videos/movies of the time it looks like Britain was heaviliy 'war-ified' (is that a word?) even in 1941. (Make do and mend, save rubber, donate scrap/metal, rations etc)

I remember a program about wartime propaganda, and there was a German video from aroun 1943-44 shown of when Goebbels put German economy onto a war footing. The crowd have seemingly been breifed before hand, and Goebells gives a breif speech about making sacrifices for the war effort, and then asks 'Do we want total war?' and the crowd shouts 'yes, yes!' Before cheering loudly. Until that time apparantly the German public had been effectively shielded from the effects and shortages of wartime.

Remember that Hitler didnt expect/want a long war, he believed it would be long over before any effects of changing the economy to a war footing would be needed.

I'm sure he even knew in the back o his mind, that if he didnt win the war vs Russia quickly then he would lose, so I guess it was a half-sensible policy if you ignore the large gamble that going to war on two fronts was.

He knew it was win quickly or bust. It was only in 1943-44 when everything was going wrong that he was forced to try anything and everything to win.

JZG_Thiem
08-01-2008, 04:15 PM
Afaik, that speech was held just about when the 6th Army was about to surrender.

Xiolablu3
08-01-2008, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
Afaik, that speech was held just about when the 6th Army was about to surrender.

Are you sure, Thiem? I thought it was later than that, but I cannot be sure....

Aaron_GT
08-02-2008, 04:24 AM
I am glad you noted the training aircraft the UK produced - this brings down the overall average weight. The most numerous twin engined type (production run 1935-45) was the Wellington, second was the Anson (production run 1935-50) which was mostly used as a trainer. Large numbers of trainers allowed the domestic and Empire training programmes to turn out a lot of good pilots that were very important to victory (see my earlier post).

M_Gunz
08-02-2008, 05:42 AM
Political speches as sources of real information and not misinformation, disinformation and other forms of lies...

Intriguing!

JZG_Thiem
08-02-2008, 09:45 AM
I didnt reply to Xio because i think this speech had much relevance, especially for the question when germany was put on a "full wartime" economy.

I only replied concerning when this exactly heppened.

From what i have read, germanys economy was boosted to "full wartime" since the appointment of Albert Speer in 1942. Under his reign wartime production was heavily increased and -at least- production of planes peaked out during the allied invasion in normandy.