ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole
ORIGINAL: Charlie Lewis
Interestingly enough, both the Navy and the Air command dismissed any concerns about submarine warfare, figuring that WWI had shown that the submarine was not an effective threat. The Navy had no intention to automatically restart convoys in the event of war, and the air service hadn't put any effort into developing patrol aircraft.
I'm going to copy a post I put up on the WWII- Eoad to Victory site:
As ya'll know, I've repeatedly made the arguement that the Nazis consistantly lead the Allies/Comintern powers in technology. A little light reading has reminded me of some of the reasons why I hold that opinion. (I've been re-reading Len Deighton's Blood, Tears and Folly, which I highly recommend for its revisionist British look at the war.)
Deighton makes a number of salient points concerning British cultural shortcomings involving education (less than 1% of British males attended university prior to WWII,) government ineptitude (the stories concerning armor piercing shells that broke up on impact, bombs that consistantly failed to explode, and explosives that were known to be less than 50% as effective than German explosives to name just a few, make the U. S. Navy's problems with its Mark XIV torpedo seem like cute, cuddly confusion!), Union ludditeism and general bloodymindedness (on discovering a gang of British yard workers playing cards in the Captains day cabin during a refit of his corvette after a long, particularly nasty Atlantic patrol, a Royal Navy officer was ordered "not to make a scene for fear of causing a strike!") and the simply amazing ineptitude of British upper level commanders of every branch of service. But the most telling indicator of German economic and technical superiority concerns machine tools -- the equipment needed to produce intricate and advanced weapon components such as aircraft radar or proximity fuses. Quite simply, in 1939 when Germany was the worlds largest exporter of machine tools, the UK had to import the tubes (valves) for its radar sets and aircraft instruments such as altimeters because they simply couldnt be produced in the home islands. Ever wonder why the British consistantly mounted Swedish anti-aircraft guns on their ships -- there's a reason!
Deighton tells a great story about the Technical Committee holding a meeting in the summer of 1941 which was to determine if the Germans were using Radar. This was a full year after a German radar set had been captured and identified by the British radar boffins.
The Royal Air Force, which had been firmly in the control of the strategic bomber types almost since the end of WWI, managed to think that they were prepared to mount a strategic bombing campaign against Germany with a force of less than 50 Handley Page Hampdens and Vickers Wellington two engine bombers which had a practical service ceiling of 10,000 feet.
Warspite1
And your point is? There`s nothing new in what Deighton says. To go back a step, I have no idea how they did it, but one of the great mysteries in life is how the German (and indeed Japanese) nations achieved what they did in terms of industrial success. They achieved this remarkable turn around in relatively short time from unification (in the case of the Germans) and the decision to open the country once more after years of self-imposed exile (in the case of Japan). If you want to know more then read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers – a brilliant BALANCED book.
However, why do people feel the need to print so mocking, self regarding articles as the one you posted? Why pick on the British – and to a lesser extent the Americans – whose crime was defeating Hitler in a war they never asked for. Try reading Max Hastings Armageddon which tries to put into focus, why the Allies took so long to win the war.
As far as individual points are concerned, The Royal Air Force thinking was no different to most countries – the bomber will always get through – well they were wrong. But the service chiefs coped with the little they had given the depression of the twenties and cash strapped thirties. But as you say, the Germans were light years ahead of the bumbling, useless British…….Spitfire? Rubbish aircraft.
Deighton tells the story of the Technical Committee and radar? I suspect there is a whole lot more to that story but why let facts get in the way of a good story. Albert Speer tells the story of Hermann Goering, whose reaction to being told that a long range Allied fighter had crashed in Germany simply replied – No it hasn`t – and that ended that conversation.
As for the last two points, firstly, yes there were problems with the unions, and shocking as it sounds, there were a huge number of days lost to industrial action during the war. During my naval write-ups I have come across a number of ships whose completion was delayed due to strike action. Is Britain the exception then? The Commander of the Pacific Fleet found a similar problem in Australia, we know France was crippled by industrial action and general unrest. I have never read of instances in the US but would be surprised if there were none there. Why no such stories in Germany or Japan (or Russia)? Maybe something to do with the fact that any such action would be met with a bullet or a visit to one of their camps…..
German technical superiority. Have you ANY idea how many ships the Germans did NOT sink at the start of the war due to faulty torpedoes? Or has that point been ignored as it does not fit the argument? “The British were prepared to mount a strategic bombing campaign with 50 Hampdens and Wellingtons” What? How could they be so stupid? You will be telling me next that they tried to invade Russia with MkI and MkII tanks still making up a large part of their armoured forces? Or that they would try and break their opponents vulnerable sea lanes with a handful of ocean going submarines….Oh no, that was the Germans.
Were the Germans generally better at building/manufacturing high quality steel, optical instruments etc etc? Yes. Were the British in industrial decline? Yes - they had been for sixty years before that.
But I repeat; the point is? Would you have preferred that in 1939 we simply said, right we can`t compete with the Germans – our planes, tanks, ships etc are all rubbish, we as a nation of individuals are all useless, we made strategic and operational mistakes with convoys and types of aircraft and, well just about everything else - so we will give this war a miss.
[/center]
