Why did Britain win the BoB?

rec.aviation.military


"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...



Responding to everything will take too long. I will respond to some.
Thank you for spending the time to write such long responses.



Well, then: Why did they like the line up they went with more
than other options?



Could you consider using english as the method of
expression? ...



It reads fine to me.



Snip



You still do not get it do you, to accelerate
production requires significant effort throughout
the supply chain. And it seems you intend to
keep trying to pretend a new production line
could be set up nearly instantaneously.



Production did double. You maintain this was strictly due to
structural decisions made in 1938 bearing fruit and overtime.
You didn't mention expanded purchasing from the USA of materials,
fuel, machines, parts, and weapons as significant either. I do
believe that structural decisions of the near and far past have
explanatory power, for sure! I do think that overtime, and expanded
purchasing of goods, services, and materials form abroad can also
explain how an increase in production adn strenght is possible.
Either you or Keith stated that "overtime" was a major reason
production soared in the short-term. Historically, Britain's RAF did
manage an emergency expansion of fighter production. By taking
workers, materials, floor space from bombers over to fighters it seems
to me as if this historical artifact of doubling fighter production in
months can be increased. It is after all, a historical fact of the
earth; I'm just making it even more so for some imagined SimWWII.



Mass production of the Hurricane had been
established by July 1st, 1940 and the
Spitfire was on immediate path
for start-up to mass production.



The Spitfire was in major production in 1940, the problem
was the second, larger factory, had not come on line as
planned.



Why can't they tap the USA machine tools' market, and other commercial
stocks. USA machine tools are right up with Germany and Sweden, and
they are for export too.



Snip



No I prefer to go with the idea some users of the internet are
not all they are cracked up to be, and the historians are
much more likely to be correct.



Historians are a lot like journalists. There is just too much going
on... Important angles get missed. If an angle is esoteric, not
glamours, or uncomfortable to the core audience, then important angles
and information can be missed altogether.


Snip 200+ lines making fun of aircraft parts manufacture at small
factories near or on W.W.II air bases



There is a moderator of soc.history.wwii
who pontificate on the Axis logistical
situation in the Mediterreans from 1940-1943.
The book he liked to quote had no mention
of German, and Axis, military barges augmenting
Axis supply in Africa--but they existed, as do
mini-mills and small aircraft factories on and
near air bases during W.W.II. You will just
have to keep a nose out. It is really sad how
ignorant some "experts" are around here. I
suppose you don't think that a mini-mill
can even exist.



Yes the laughter value is quit high, the fleet of low freeboard
barges supplying Rommel across an Ocean. The need to
simply state over and over there were aircraft manufacturing
plants on air bases, plants no one else has ever heard of,
and when asked for proof, simply restate the claim and go
boating.



I doubt this will matter, but try and read the following British
histories,



Design and Development of weapons, by Postan, Hay and Scott
British War Production by Postan
British War Economy Hancock and Gowing.
Factories and Plant by Horny



If you read them and your knowledge, attitude, and general awareness
is coming from the goofs who wrote those books, then be ill-informed.
Today, the USA has just the sort of operations I recall hearing of in
documentaries on the History Channel--look up jet engine parts
manufacturing. There were more companies in the past than today to
boot.


As far as Germany using sea going (not ocean going) barges to support
Africa? I have evidence your books are good for ass wipe.
Important, on-topic, material missed by writers of books--what's next!
That's life. Books about the past are inherently incomplete;
similar to news reports about the day. It is even possible news
reports of severe fuel conservation in Britain after July 1st, 1940
were over-stated hot air intended to sell papers, or something other
than the square truth. Maybe, the British and Common Wealth readers of
military histry place biasing demands on history writers to
demonstrate a powerful, competent, confident Britain and Common
Wealth. Come on--you believe that Britain and the Common Wealth were
fully equal partners with the USA, and not that the UK and Common
wealth became "vassal" to USA power and interests. I think it is a
fact that Britain became a vassal power to the USA, and you don't!



http://www.warships1.com/German_amphibs.htm
http://www2.arnes.si/~gbasia/dtm/dtm.htm



The barges existed, were well used, and even Rommel liked them well
enough to have them ship fuel right up near the front. Those nasty
1,000+ mile fuel runs across the desert are greatly in error. They
used f)c&ing huge landing crafts and delivered right to the front
line. I know, many "logistical" military historians missed them all
together.



Snip



How can you write such drivel?



We still await how many 17 pounders were delivered by air,
how fighter bombers were to attack oil plants in 1943 and
early 1944 and indeed how many fighter bomber attacks
were done on economic targets, and so on, it is interesting
to see how much has been deleted from the non reply.



The fact that the Allies didn't do something doesn't automatically
mean they could not have done it. You see, if you didn't understand
the last sentence, then it is unlikely you will understand the next
sentences. If the Allies cut way back on heavy bombers, this will
allow them to spend more elsewhere, such as spending a lot more on the
airborne. The suggested improvement is for a 100,000 troop airborne
with 2x spending per troop over the actual historical spending. This
means 17 pounders are delivered in the imagined SimWWII. This is a
difference the Allied game player goes with, so it is different from
the historical W.W.II. If you still don't understand the first
sentence, then goodnight.




John Freck

John Freck wrote in message ...


"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

Responding to everything will take too long. I will respond to some.

Translation, unable to respond to facts so delete them and go
post the same claims elsewhere.

Thank you for spending the time to write such long responses.


cut and past makes it easy.


You still do not get it do you, to accelerate
production requires significant effort throughout
the supply chain. And it seems you intend to
keep trying to pretend a new production line
could be set up nearly instantaneously.

Production did double. You maintain this was strictly due to
structural decisions made in 1938 bearing fruit and overtime.

Correct, "strictly" is too strong, but almost all is correct. Average
day shift working week in July 1940 63.6 hours, the night shifts
worked even longer weeks.

You didn't mention expanded purchasing from the USA of materials,
fuel, machines, parts, and weapons as significant either.

Parts of the 1938 decisions related to purchasing of materials
from overseas. By the way UK machine tool exports doubled
in 1938 and 1939 compared with 1937 thanks to large orders
from the USSR.

There was trade going on, the UK was importing machine tools
from many countries, during WWII the US supplied around half
the UK imports.

I do
believe that structural decisions of the near and far past have
explanatory power, for sure! I do think that overtime, and expanded
purchasing of goods, services, and materials form abroad can also
explain how an increase in production adn strenght is possible.
Either you or Keith stated that "overtime" was a major reason
production soared in the short-term. Historically, Britain's RAF did
manage an emergency expansion of fighter production. By taking
workers, materials, floor space from bombers over to fighters it seems
to me as if this historical artifact of doubling fighter production in
months can be increased.

Since you intend to keep deleting the basic facts there is only
so much people can do to point out you do not have a clue
about what you are talking about.

There is no easy way to switch production of something as
complex as an aircraft. It takes years to build up production
lines. There is no way converting a bomber factory to a
fighter factory would happen in the time it took to fight the
Battle of Britain. It takes thousands of hours to set up for
a production run.

Effort in man hours, Spitfire production, mark / design / jigging
and tooling

I / 339,400 / 800,000
II / 9,267 / unknown
III / 91,120 / 75,000
V / 90,000 / 105,000
VI 14,340 / 50,000
IX 43,830 / 30,000
XII / 27,210 / 16,000
VII / 86,150 / 150,000
VIII / 24,970 / 250,000
XIV / 26,120 / 17,000
21 / 168,500 / unknown
PR XI / 12,415 / unknown
Seafire I / 10,130 / 18,000
Seafire II / 3,685 / 40,000
Seafire III / 8,938 / 9,000
Seafire XV / 9,150 / unknown
Spitfire on floats 22,260 / 35,000

Figures as of September 1943 for Supermarine works in
Southampton.

Even what looks like trivial design changes imposed
delays and loss of production.

British Fighter output June to October 1940 by type, planned
and actual

Month // Beaufighter P/A // Defiant P/A // Hurricane P/A // Spitfire
P/A // Whirlwind P/A

June // 8/2 // 30/30 // 300/309 // 135/103 // 8/2
July // 14/5 // 50/56 // 220/272 // 140/160 // 4/3
August // 21/25 // 65/38 // 270/251 // 155/163 // 6/1
September // 24/15 // 65/41 // 280/252 // 175/156 // 8/3
October // 40/21 // 50/48 // 300/250 // 231/149 // 10/1

Total British aircraft production in 1940 January 802, February
719, March 860, April 1,081, May 1,279, June 1,591, July 1,665,
August 1,601, September 1,341, October 1,419, November
1,461, December 1,230.

There are two reasons for the summer peak, more good weather
for acceptance flights and people putting in large amounts of
overtime to produce as much as possible, with the inevitable
result of declining production as the workers tired. It took until
March 1941 to beat the peak monthly figure in 1940, partly
thanks to the dispesal of plants.

Also total fighter production was April 256, May 325, June 446,
July 496, August 476, September 469. The "new" production
lines, Beaufighter and Whirlwind, help the production figures,
June 4, July 8, August 26, September 18. Then add the new
Spitfire factory coming on line, producing 125 Spitfires between
6 June and 30 September. So in all June to September the
British produced 1,885 fighters, 181 or 10% from the new
production lines. Then add the Glosters Hurricane line coming
into full production, since it started in late 1939.

It is after all, a historical fact of the
earth; I'm just making it even more so for some imagined SimWWII.


I believe the machines you want are the Star Trek replicators.

Mass production of the Hurricane had been
established by July 1st, 1940 and the
Spitfire was on immediate path
for start-up to mass production.

The Spitfire was in major production in 1940, the problem
was the second, larger factory, had not come on line as
planned.

Why can't they tap the USA machine tools' market, and other commercial
stocks. USA machine tools are right up with Germany and Sweden, and
they are for export too.

The UK was importing US machine tools, the problem which
does not seem to register is the time it took to create a
production line.

Snip
No I prefer to go with the idea some users of the internet are
not all they are cracked up to be, and the historians are
much more likely to be correct.

Historians are a lot like journalists. There is just too much going
on... Important angles get missed. If an angle is esoteric, not
glamours, or uncomfortable to the core audience, then important angles
and information can be missed altogether.

I see, the claimed "fact" that airbases could and did manufacture
large numbers of aircraft and that aircraft carriers could to the
same thing, is "esoteric". That is the numbers are supposed to
be so small as to be insignificant. Alternatively the details have
been suppressed by "dark forces" and only the truth bringer knows
about them.

Snip 200+ lines making fun of aircraft parts manufacture at small
factories near or on W.W.II air bases

Translation, all the unanswerable facts deleted.

There is a moderator of soc.history.wwii
who pontificate on the Axis logistical
situation in the Mediterreans from 1940-1943.
The book he liked to quote had no mention
of German, and Axis, military barges augmenting
Axis supply in Africa--but they existed, as do
mini-mills and small aircraft factories on and
near air bases during W.W.II. You will just
have to keep a nose out. It is really sad how
ignorant some "experts" are around here. I
suppose you don't think that a mini-mill
can even exist.

Yes the laughter value is quit high, the fleet of low freeboard
barges supplying Rommel across an Ocean. The need to
simply state over and over there were aircraft manufacturing
plants on air bases, plants no one else has ever heard of,
and when asked for proof, simply restate the claim and go
boating.

I doubt this will matter, but try and read the following British
histories,

Design and Development of weapons, by Postan, Hay and Scott
British War Production by Postan
British War Economy Hancock and Gowing.
Factories and Plant by Horny

If you read them and your knowledge, attitude, and general awareness
is coming from the goofs who wrote those books, then be ill-informed.

I doubt this will matter, but try and read the following British
histories,

Design and Development of weapons, by Postan, Hay and Scott
British War Production by Postan
British War Economy Hancock and Gowing.
Factories and Plant by Hornby

And for the UK fuel situation,

Oil; a study of war-time policy and administration, by Payton-Smith.

They all make it clear the aircraft were built in factories
that took years to bring to full production and that the RAF
was not short of fuel.

Today, the USA has just the sort of operations I recall hearing of in
documentaries on the History Channel--look up jet engine parts
manufacturing. There were more companies in the past than today to
boot.

Yes folks just remember because an aircraft plant in Australia
makes ailerons for Boeing that plant can churn out 747s, 767s,
B-52s, etc. to order with only a short delay.

Maybe the clue will eventually be noticed and the difference
between manufacture and assembly will be understood plus
the idea of sub contracting.

As far as Germany using sea going (not ocean going) barges to support
Africa? I have evidence your books are good for ass wipe.

Ah I see, you should have said you obtain your information
from reading the toilet paper, the dolphins do have some
quite wise sayings.

Important, on-topic, material missed by writers of books--what's next!
That's life. Books about the past are inherently incomplete;
similar to news reports about the day. It is even possible news
reports of severe fuel conservation in Britain after July 1st, 1940
were over-stated hot air intended to sell papers, or something other
than the square truth.

All you have to do now is tell us where these reports of
the severe fuel shortages are, since the UK history on
oil, that is a whole book devoted to the subject of liquid
fuels, makes no mention of severe fuel shortage in
England during the war. And certainly no mention of
fuel problems cramping RAF operations.

Maybe, the British and Common Wealth readers of
military histry place biasing demands on history writers to
demonstrate a powerful, competent, confident Britain and Common
Wealth.

Ah I see when unable to provide evidence simply
announce everyone else is a liar.

Come on--you believe that Britain and the Common Wealth were
fully equal partners with the USA, and not that the UK and Common
wealth became "vassal" to USA power and interests. I think it is a
fact that Britain became a vassal power to the USA, and you don't!


This is quite funny, in 1942 the US in Europe was the second
banana, it beacome number 1 in 1944. As for vassal states
it is clear the need for an off topic rant has become urgent to
detract from the lack of facts. Last time I checked the US is
so powerful it can obtain its own way much more easily than
anyone else, but not everything everytime.

http://www.warships1.com/German_amphibs.htm
http://www2.arnes.si/~gbasia/dtm/dtm.htm

The barges existed, were well used, and even Rommel liked them well
enough to have them ship fuel right up near the front. Those nasty
1,000+ mile fuel runs across the desert are greatly in error. They
used f)c&ing huge landing crafts and delivered right to the front
line. I know, many "logistical" military historians missed them all
together.

Ah I see the idea some supplies were sent by barge along the
coast (Hear of the RN inshore squadron by the way?) means
none were sent by truck. As opposed to the quartermasters
using both methods of transport as appropriate.


Snip

How can you write such drivel?

Yes folks the only way to respond is to delete the text and then
put in the editorial about how bad it was. Some of the deleted
text.

"So how many F-18s does the average USN carrier
produce a year? What is the production rate of the
standard USAF airbase?"

"Ah I see the ability to make basic repairs is turned into the
ability to make whole machines. So every backyard
mechanic can turn out vehicles in numbers, silly then to
create mass production lines, go back to the craft system."

"I doubt anyone is holding their breath for facts from John Freck.
It seems the fact one country can exceed production targets in
an area means all countries can do so quickly and easily.
Remember apparently the British can change production in
a matter of days."

"Why not look up the references on how
the RAF armed for war? The histories I mentioned earlier
have pages of tables on projected and actual aircraft
production, including the times production was ahead of
projections and when it was behind.

Then there are the many studies on how the RAF mobilised
before WWII."

We still await how many 17 pounders were delivered by air,
how fighter bombers were to attack oil plants in 1943 and
early 1944 and indeed how many fighter bomber attacks
were done on economic targets, and so on, it is interesting
to see how much has been deleted from the non reply.

The fact that the Allies didn't do something doesn't automatically
mean they could not have done it.

Yes we are heading for the end game.

You see, if you didn't understand
the last sentence, then it is unlikely you will understand the next
sentences.

Translation, no facts so time to jump to a new topic.

If the Allies cut way back on heavy bombers, this will
allow them to spend more elsewhere, such as spending a lot more on the
airborne. The suggested improvement is for a 100,000 troop airborne
with 2x spending per troop over the actual historical spending. This
means 17 pounders are delivered in the imagined SimWWII.

Yes folks apparently having twice the number of US paratroops
means the C-47 can fit and drop a 17 pounder gun. So if we
go to 4 times the paratroops it can trop say a 155mm gun,
at 10 times the number of paratroops presumably the C-47
can then carry a Pershing and so on.

On the other hand maybe the paratroops drop with their own
mini mill and make the guns themselves after deployment,
or maybe make C-130s to fly in the guns.

We will just ignore the fact that airforces and armies are not
interchangable, the air forces use much less manpower but
more industry per man. We will also just ignore the problems
paratroopers had in combat, they needed support from the
regular ground forces if the enemy had heavy weapons present,
except the HG Parachute Panzer division of course, always
wondered how they could ever paradrop a Panther.

This is a
difference the Allied game player goes with, so it is different from
the historical W.W.II.

So a game with fictional abilites is the truth and the histories
are the fiction.

If you still don't understand the first
sentence, then goodnight.


Ah they have arrived with your sedative I gather.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.