British Manpower shortages by the end of WW2

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
Politician01
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: British Manpower shortages by the end of WW2

Post by Politician01 » 22 Mar 2020 22:55

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
22 Mar 2020 22:37
Politician01 wrote:
22 Mar 2020 22:06
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
22 Mar 2020 22:01
Do you not understand that evidence of shortage of workers is England is not evidence of not untapped manpower in Empire?
Do you have Sources that prove:

1. That there was untapped Manpower in the Empire?
2. That this untapped Manpower could have been used in Europe en mass?
3. That this untapped Manpower would have been willing to be used in Europe, en mass?
Do you have Sources that prove:
1. That Manpower in the Empire was complete tapped?
2. That this Manpower could not have been used in Europe en mass?
3. That this Manpower would not have been willing to be used in Europe, en mass?
No I dont have - that is exactly the reason why I created this thread. Now you claim that all of the points above apply - then it is up to you to prove it - produce.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: British Manpower shortages by the end of WW2

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 22 Mar 2020 23:27

Politician01 wrote:
22 Mar 2020 22:55


No I dont have - that is exactly the reason why I created this thread. Now you claim that all of the points above apply - then it is up to you to prove it - produce.
I not have to prove nothing.

You can to research for to yourself total populations of Empire countrys and how many was tapped and how many was not tapped.

* Comment removed by this moderator.


When not understand subject most best way to understand subject is do research for to yourself. Very easy on internet and google.

When you not have evidences for complete tapped and not have evidences for untapped then best solution is to find datas for to yourself.

Bad idea to decide answer with no evidences and then to order to other peoples to prove your decision wrong.


*Ружичасти Слон - Please do not call others names as that can lead to flame wars. Stick to the topic please.

Terry Duncan

Politician01
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: British Manpower shortages by the end of WW2

Post by Politician01 » 23 Mar 2020 10:08

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
22 Mar 2020 23:27
Politician01 wrote:
22 Mar 2020 22:55


No I dont have - that is exactly the reason why I created this thread. Now you claim that all of the points above apply - then it is up to you to prove it - produce.
I not have to prove nothing.

You can to research for to yourself total populations of Empire countrys and how many was tapped and how many was not tapped.

I was write earlier do you be troll or not understand subject. Troll want to annoy other people and make do work for nothing. Do that be you?

When not understand subject most best way to understand subject is do research for to yourself. Very easy on internet and google.

When you not have evidences for complete tapped and not have evidences for untapped then best solution is to find datas for to yourself.

Bad idea to decide answer with no evidences and then to order to other peoples to prove your decision wrong.
A Forum is there so people can share their knowledge, thats why people in forums ask questions so that they dont have to do all the work by themselves. You dont have any Information on that topic - thats ok. But in that case dont clog the thread with your balderdash.

Good Day Sir.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 1813
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: British Manpower shortages by the end of WW2

Post by Gooner1 » 23 Mar 2020 15:13

Andy H wrote:
21 Mar 2020 18:26

Hi

Ellis (The World War II Data Book) Pg277, lists UK AFV/SP production as:-

1939=969
1940=1399
1941=4841
1942=8611
1943=7476
1944=4600

As Richard states,this was mainly down to the standardisation around US AFV's plus the cessation of older and outdated British models.

Regards

Andy H
The British OH series on British War Production gives an index of monthly production in certain categories for the Army compared with a September - December monthly output averaged at a 100. For Armoured Fighting Vehicles the index is:
May 1942 - 1,847
May 1943 - 1,984
May 1944 - 1,317

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/ ... ion-6.html

So overall production didn't quite decline as precipitately as the raw tank figures might suggest. Also roughly proportionate to the decline in the numbers employed on orders for the army.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7072
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: British Manpower shortages by the end of WW2

Post by Sid Guttridge » 23 Mar 2020 16:46

Hi Ружичасти Слон,

You say there were "500,000 unskilled workers in Southern Rhodesia have no job and nothing to do."

If you are simply counting bodies, then that is true. But they were all illiterate subsistence farmers who were working hard just to feed themselves. They were not available in any real sense except in very small numbers (i.e. the single battalion of the Rhodesian African Rifles) and ill suited to modern technological warfare without enormous investment in education, training and battle inoculation.

Leadership cadres (essentially European officers) were not available because much of Rhodesia's white male population was being used to help officer the far larger Royal West African Frontier Force and the Kings African Rifles raised in West and East Africa respectively.

In extremis, the USSR found it necessary to send millions of under trained, under equipped men to the front and suffered appalling casualties as a result. However, the UK was never in that position of extremis and so didn't ever have to treat even its most ill regarded colonial subjects as cannon fodder in the same way. Where African divisions were later used (i.e. Burma in 1944-45) it was as fully trained, fully equipped, structured formations.

Cheers,

Sid.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: British Manpower shortages by the end of WW2

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 23 Mar 2020 17:04


*Ружичасти Слон - Please do not call others names as that can lead to flame wars. Stick to the topic please.

Terry Duncan[/b]
I not call names. I was ask if he was a t***l because it seems to me he was act like one. What word can i to use on forum to decribe person what he do?

In forum rules write
Questions, Claims and Proof

1. Questions

In the research sections of the forum, we ask the posters to be reasonably well-prepared, and not ask others for information which they could easily get for themselves. The purpose of these sections of the forum is to provide a place where historical matters can be intelligently discussed. It is not a research service.

Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning.
Politician1 ask for source of understanding about untapped manpower resources of British empire. I gave correct answer. Source is on analyses of datas about Empire total populations and datas on how many was employed on war effort and how many not used on war effort.

Datas can be found very easy on the internet. Maybe datas from most quick research is not much detail. But very quick reasonably intelligent person can to understand Empire has very very big manpower and reletively small numbers was used on war effort.

You Terry duncan was start topic when you was write
2. There are rather more people available to the UK and US, so invading the UK is simply not going to work, ...
You was not write source for this. You was not write explains why is correct. Why? Because you know it is something that is obvious. And even when somebody not know datas it can to be found very easy on internet.

But politician1 was decide to make question. Was politian1 follow forum rules? Was politician1 "reasonably well prepared". Was politician1 "ask others for information which they could easily get for themselves."? Was politician1 ask for intelligent discussion or research service?

Politician1 already has answer he want in his head and want poeples to prove him wrong. Is that intelligent discussion?

To support his answer he give datas for something else. He want datas on unused manpower in Empire but give datas on afv production, manpower allocations in UK and evidences of field army rationializationing of infantry because not enough trained infantry immediatly available. Datas have nothing about Empire manpower resources. It was deception and mislead. Is that intelligent discussion?

What word can to describe somebody who write such things?

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: British Manpower shortages by the end of WW2

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 23 Mar 2020 17:30

Sid Guttridge wrote:
23 Mar 2020 16:46
Hi Ружичасти Слон,

You say there were "500,000 unskilled workers in Southern Rhodesia have no job and nothing to do."

If you are simply counting bodies, then that is true. But they were all illiterate subsistence farmers who were working hard just to feed themselves. They were not available in any real sense except in very small numbers (i.e. the single battalion of the Rhodesian African Rifles) and ill suited to modern technological warfare without enormous investment in education, training and battle inoculation.

Leadership cadres (essentially European officers) were not available because much of Rhodesia's white male population was being used to help officer the far larger Royal West African Frontier Force and the Kings African Rifles raised in West and East Africa respectively.

In extremis, the USSR found it necessary to send millions of under trained, under equipped men to the front and suffered appalling casualties as a result. However, the UK was never in that position of extremis and so didn't ever have to treat even its most ill regarded colonial subjects as cannon fodder in the same way. Where African divisions were later used (i.e. Burma in 1944-45) it was as fully trained, fully equipped, structured formations.

Cheers,

Sid.
I was make random place and random numbers to show shortage workers in UK factory is not evidence of complete and maximum use of Empire manpower resources.

But some datas. In all war 1939-45 Southern Rhodesia was have total 26,121 peoples in military. That was about 2% of total populations. 8,390 was go overseas to fight. Less 1% of total populations. Very small contribution.

Compare to how French government was on history use Empire manpower.

Compare to how themarksplan imagine Nazi Germany to use manpower resources in his imaginary stories.

It was choice of UK goverment not to use manpower resources of Empire so much. Evidence of choice is not evidence for resources not existing. In imaginary stories when one side to use maximum manpower resources to maximum then other side can to.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7072
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: British Manpower shortages by the end of WW2

Post by Sid Guttridge » 03 Apr 2020 12:12

Hi Ружичасти Слон,

The total European (essentially British) population of Southern Rhodesia at the time was only about 60,000. Southern Rhodesia's white male population was only about 30,000 and was the most highly mobilized of any British colony. As I explained above, they were mostly either officering African troops from East or West Africa or in the RAF (Southern Rhodesia had a large role in the Commonwealth Air Traininmg Scheme).

As also explained above, the African population of Southern Rhodesia were then overwhelmingly illiterate subsistence farmers fully engaged in just trying to feed themsleves and so few were available for, or useful to, military mobilization without much preparation.

The French situation was different from Britain's. France had a border with Germany but only about half the population. It could therefore not match Germany man-for-man purely from metroplitan resources. Therefore, from long before either world war, it planned to to raise North African and West African colonial divisions for service in France. Britain, protected by the Royal Navy, did not have to do so.

It is no use mobilizing manpower if you cannot equip it. At the time of the Munich Crisis in 1938, Britain could send only two fully equipped divisions to the continent. Britain couldn't even equip all the metropolitan troops it sent to France in 1939-40 and some of the territorial divisions were still under equipped when the Germans struck in May 1940.

If you look at the British campaigns against Japan, "only" about 30,000 metroplitan Britons died. This was because the UK's war against Japan was largely carried by the Indian Army (and three African divisions) in Burma and the Australians (and a New Zealand division) in the South Pacific.

Against Germany and Italy, East Africa was almost entirely over run by Indian and African divisions. The Indian Army largely occupied Iraq, Syria and Iran. The North African Campaign was half carried by South African, Australian, New Zealand and Indian divisions. The Italian campaign included South African, Canadian, New Zealand and Indian divisions and a Jewish Brigade. (The UK also equipped exiled Polish, Greek, Yugoslav, Free French, Norwegian, Belgian and Dutch divisions and brigades.) Where colonial formations could be raised, equipped and trained to modern standards, tghis was done.

Of course, the British could have sent human waves of millions of under trained, under equipped, under led colonial manpower into action, but to what effect? The war was won without any need to do so.

Cheers,

Sid.

Return to “Economy”