LastspikemikeBottom line though, the system you create must be properly thought through to the end. Governments are generally incapable of doing that. Just look at how well governments fight wars, for example.....
So who other than governments fight wars?
wjstix Lastspikemike Bottom line though, the system you create must be properly thought through to the end. Governments are generally incapable of doing that. Just look at how well governments fight wars, for example..... So who other than governments fight wars?
Lastspikemike Bottom line though, the system you create must be properly thought through to the end. Governments are generally incapable of doing that. Just look at how well governments fight wars, for example.....
The Hatfields and McCoys for one.
Ed- Thanks for the historical photos link you posted. I swear half of the bookmarks on my computer have come from you!
Re the OP's question, keep in mind most any company that made consumer goods switched to make things for the war effort. It wasn't uncommon to walk down a street and see several stores with a sign in the window "CLOSED FOR THE DURATION". No use keeping your candy store open; with sugar rationed, there was no candy to sell...and/or the owner was in the service.
As mentioned before, wood wasn't rationed, and plastic kits didn't exist yet, so I would think some wood 'craftsman's kits' for cars, buildings etc. might still be around. However, any kit with some metal parts - and of course locomotives - would have hard to come by.
I guess the bottom line is, model railroading during the war wasn't discouraged - but probably was somewhat discouraging, due to all the shortages.
Lastspikemike Bear in mind that the wartime materials shortages issues were largely civilian morale building propaganda, not real at all. In Britain civilians were encouraged to turn in their aluminum cookware (which nobody uses nowadays anyway due to the theory of an Alhziemers connection). The amount of aluminium required for just one fighter would consume a seriously huge number of pots and pans. As for iron and steel, really? Domestic consumption of those materials wouldn't build a battleship. Leaving aside the fact that battleships were obsolete before the end of WWI. And so on, the same "we're all in this together" nonsense is being spread around right now for similar civilian morale purposes unrelated to reality. Not to contradict the reality of bans on "trivial" use of "scarce" materials. But it was just propaganda, not real.
Bear in mind that the wartime materials shortages issues were largely civilian morale building propaganda, not real at all. In Britain civilians were encouraged to turn in their aluminum cookware (which nobody uses nowadays anyway due to the theory of an Alhziemers connection). The amount of aluminium required for just one fighter would consume a seriously huge number of pots and pans. As for iron and steel, really? Domestic consumption of those materials wouldn't build a battleship. Leaving aside the fact that battleships were obsolete before the end of WWI.
And so on, the same "we're all in this together" nonsense is being spread around right now for similar civilian morale purposes unrelated to reality.
Not to contradict the reality of bans on "trivial" use of "scarce" materials. But it was just propaganda, not real.
Based on what my parents told me, you are quite wrong. My father was 14 during the Battle of Britain, living in London a mile west of the Green Line. He spent his days with the old and lame men cleaning up the bodies and debris from the bombing the night before. They had meat stew a couple of times a week, and never had salt or sugar. My mother's family - poor folks living in Cambridge, MA - lost their ability to commute to jobs due to gasoline rationing and shortage of space on available trains. Aluminum pots were collected. Sugar and coffee were rationed, car tires could not be replaced.
The main point of the civilian "turn ins" and rationing was to free those items up for the military and defense industries and workers, not so much for recycling. And it was quite an extraordinary list, especially in Great Britain. Tires, gasoline, meat, coffee, most items made from metal were all rationed or simply unavailable to civilians. As the war went on, and supply chains were re-established, some of the rationing was lifted. However, meat and sugar rationing in Great Britain did not end until 1947. My father grew up not knowing what condiments, and fresh vegetables and fruit were. I still don't use many dressings or sauces because my father grew up without them. Toy train production in the US didn't really resume until 1947.
Fred W
In my modeling magainzes from that era and in the run up to our offical entry in the war after Pearl Harbor was attacked, modelers were encouraged with articles how to make due thru the war rationing years. Alternative ways to build models ect. From Lionel down thru the other scales, they encouraged those not overseas fighting for our country to keep modeling in some shape or form. Even if it was just planning what you were going to do once the war was over and material was available again for model trains. The classifieds were quite busy in the modeling press during that time as once new models were bought up, all that was left was second hand models. Mikie
Silly NT's, I have Asperger's Syndrome
Actually, GDP per capita went down in the UK between 1943 and 1945. I wouldn't call that a booming economy.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270
Simon
snjroyActually, GDP per capita went down in the UK between 1943 and 1945. I wouldn't call that a booming economy.
Great point Simon. I had assumed the opposite was true.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
LastspikemikeThe opposite was true. GDP increased markedly from 1938 to 1945. It would be impossible for it to be otherwise.
As a quick check I looked for the 'stated' result of the depressions in 1930 and 1938 and can see them in the calculated trace, so someone has clearly done homework in making the graph. I think it is now time for lastspikemike to indicate with actual references to actual scholarship why he thinks there was no decrease in 1943-45...
GDP, measuring goods and services produced/provided probably went down in 43/44/45 because so many people were in military service and not producing goods or services. I know they were serving, just not economically.
davidmurrayGDP, measuring goods and services produced/provided probably went down in 43/44/45 because so many people were in military service and not producing goods or services. I know they were serving, just not economically.
See if you can find it in a library or get it on interlibrary loan. Many chapters of this were apparently taken from material put up on voxEU, probably still available there for free, so I'd look carefully or ask over there before actually paying inflated book price.
LastspikemikeFrom an economics perspective it matters not if a man earns his daily bread by shooting other people or by making model trains.
I do have a suspicion that the decrease seen in GDP may be structural and subject to definition, but I also suspect these period economists are neither fools nor doctrinaires with some point to make about reduction in some measure of 'domestic production'. I have to wonder in some sense if the argument here is that vastly reduced demand (through rationing as well as tolerated diversions from consumer to military production) is a driver of apparent contraction in the overall 'supply side' measurement; the shape of the 'dip' as graphed is suggestive (note the short, and steep, appreciation just before it).
LastspikemikeActually, no, it matters not whether the government pays a person to shoot other people, to stay home, to read a book or to make model locomotives.
I have the impression the numbers were calculated from historical data, not merely reprinted from 'official government statistics', presumably following whatever definition of GDP they chose. The balance of trade adjustment from there to GNP would be badly distorted in wartime after 1941, but that might not be 'enough in itself' to explain the dip.
I can't help but think the various authors cited have discussed this dip and have given reasons to explain it in detail.
Lastspikemike For the UK for much of WWII their armed forces were at home doing very little.
For the UK for much of WWII their armed forces were at home doing very little.
Doing very little -- I suppose some members of my family & many thousands were 'on holiday' in --
Malaya & Singapore
Burma & Northern India
Africa
Italy
and other theaters of war.
All before D-Day.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
Although it's true governments withhold or distort the truth during war - the RAF would lose 50 planes in a day, an the British War Ministry would report 15 losses - but that's a far cry from saying the British government withheld things from the citizenry, like rationing sugar and meat, hoping it would make them feel they were more a part of the war effort.
I remember reading that during the war that Bill Haley (the Rock'n'Roll pioneer) worked double 8-hr shifts at Baldwin's Eddystone plant, using a 24-lb. wrench tightening bolts on steam engines. I doubt he felt like he was just doing 'busywork' like digging holes and filling them back in.
Lastspikemike snjroy Actually, GDP per capita went down in the UK between 1943 and 1945. I wouldn't call that a booming economy. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270 Simon Compared to 1930-1939?
snjroy Actually, GDP per capita went down in the UK between 1943 and 1945. I wouldn't call that a booming economy. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270 Simon
Compared to 1930-1939?
Economics is a funny thing. It doesn't matter how much was produced in the previous decades: Once an economy slumps for 6 months (two quarters, according to the definition), people lose jobs and less goods are produced. When an economy focusses on producing bullets and airplanes, both materials that go into these and consumer goods become scarce. And train makers start making compasses...
Food was not an exception (apart for the wealthy of course). The fact is that Britain imported most of its food before the war, and then the war broke the supply chain :
"Before the Second World War started, Britain imported 55 million tons of food a year. By the end of 1939, this had dropped to 12 million, and food rationing was introduced at the start of 1940. It did not completely end until July 1954. " (Wikipedia)
Not sure the propaganda was necessary after 1945, except perhaps during the Korean war...
PS: GDP includes government spendings, but not the transfer payments
Well here's what I read, sorry if I somehow misunderstood what you wrote, but it seemed pretty straightforward....
LastspikemikeFact: there were no real wartime shortages of materials, see fact 1 above. Governments invented these imaginary shortages to encourage their populations to "do without" to support the war effort.
LastspikemikeFact: all governments lied to their populations about what was going on during wartime, propaganda and mendacity in general is endemic to our political process. In this sense democracies are worse than totalitarian states in part because voters tend to believe their lying politicians.
Lastspikemike NittanyLion I just want to point out that the scrap steel drives in 1942 in the US rounded up enough steel for 102 Iowa class battleships. Even if only half would have been scrap otherwise missed in the normal collection of scrap metal, that's still a lot of steel. 102? First of all scrap steel isn't suitable for making armour plate. I'm virtually certain that wherever this information came from it is just another example of government propaganda. I agree that it takes a lot of steel to build a ship. The armour plate on line of battle ships built for WWII was massive. I would be more than happy to be proved wrong about WWII government propaganda but it will take more than bare assertions for me to be convinced.
NittanyLion I just want to point out that the scrap steel drives in 1942 in the US rounded up enough steel for 102 Iowa class battleships. Even if only half would have been scrap otherwise missed in the normal collection of scrap metal, that's still a lot of steel.
I just want to point out that the scrap steel drives in 1942 in the US rounded up enough steel for 102 Iowa class battleships.
Even if only half would have been scrap otherwise missed in the normal collection of scrap metal, that's still a lot of steel.
102? First of all scrap steel isn't suitable for making armour plate.
I'm virtually certain that wherever this information came from it is just another example of government propaganda.
I agree that it takes a lot of steel to build a ship. The armour plate on line of battle ships built for WWII was massive.
I would be more than happy to be proved wrong about WWII government propaganda but it will take more than bare assertions for me to be convinced.
I'm well aware of the specifics of how steel works for different applications and that a substantial portion of the displacement of a battleship is not steel. However, you were the one that made the claim that the volumes of scrap weren't enough to build a battleship, yet the tonnage collected was well beyond that threshold.
That said, the scrap drives gathered up the equivalent tonnage. It was about ten percent of the annual steel production of the United States for that year. It is likely that the steel would have been gathered eventually anyhow, through the natural scrap cycle. But, the surge provided a value in generating a large feedstock for the mills when foreign sourced ores were less secure.
The things that I recall being described as 'scarce' for American model railroaders were certain materials -- copper for motors and perhaps phosphor bronze being particular examples. It was my suspicion then and it remains my suspicion now that much of this might have been due to effective cost increases due to supply issues, but 'explained' to consumer hobbyists as a 'war sacrifice'. There might also have been some degree of virtue signaling about making consumer products with war fighting materiel... no matter how small the aggregate consumption might actually have been.
The USA blew through 500 megatons of Mesabi ore in the various 'wartime' efforts including the buildup to Majestic, and still needed all the scrap they could be provided. Remember that the effective cost of that scrap was remarkably low, whereas both ore and smelting cost real money...
Professor Harriss at Columbia gave me his annotated copy of Economic Consequences of the Peace and told me never to forget what it contained. It is still amazing to me that the enormous machinery of propaganda and coercion that the United States developed was not brought to bear on the Europeans ... a century later neither we nor they 'get it' at all. In my opinion we more or less blundered into post-WWII recovery as well; the years up to introduction of the Marshall plan were disastrous. But those, I agree, aren't really subjects for a model-railroading forum except where they touch on development of the hobby.
Lastspikemike102? First of all scrap steel isn't suitable for making armour plate.
I believe there is quite enough steel needed in a battleship that is not armour plate. Perhaps enough steel to supply the rest of the needs for a battleship was generated.
LastspikemikeOr battleships which were obsolete anyway by 1930, just btw.
For being obsolete since 1930, BB-63 sure did a good job on active duty in January 1991... just btw.
troynmI believe there is quite enough steel needed in a battleship that is not armour plate. Perhaps enough steel to supply the rest of the needs for a battleship was generated.
Of course you are correct, and those civilian metal drives accumulated massive amounts of resources.
Only a small part of any naval vessel is armoured.
I dug out some of the archives.
Model Builder magazine from January, 1944.
There is a big spread explaining what Lionel is buildng for the war effort instead of building model trains.
There is also a feature about building an armoured train car (which looks nothing like a real armoured train car) using materials that are not on restriction.
But the back cover sure says a lot. Even Baby Ruth candy bars were in short supply stateside because they were needed overseas to be sure our fighting men had the energy to win the war.
I like the way there was no attempt to get the proportions of a B17-G correct. It might be a B17-F, hard to tell what the artist was thinking. Where are the top turret and tail guns?
The Model Craftsman magazine, also from January, 1944.
A full page advertisement from Lionel explaining why you cannot buy any model trains, and how they are helping the war effort.
Every toy advertised inside the front cover is military in nature.
Then I dug out the first post-war volume of The Model Railroader magazine, 1946, and looked through the January issue.
There were no stories or mentions I could find about how war rations and limitations were over, but there was a full page ad from Lionel saying the model trains were back, but war time restrictions, and victory, were not mentioned.
So, yes, war time restrictions definitely effected model railroading. However, it is obvious the hobby was not discouraged. War time rationing made sure there was paper to print the hobby magazines and articles supported the hobby in spite of material shortages.
Lastspikemike...The demand for scrap steel was driven by the manner in which steel is made in the type of blast furnace used and still used...
Blast furnaces make iron, not steel.
Open hearths, BOFs, and electric furnaces make steel, using both iron and/or recycled steel, along with the various additives that determine what the end product will be...screws or nails, wheels for a bicycle or truck, or armour plate for a battleship or a tank.Steel-making is alchemy refined.
Wayne
SeeYou190I like the way there was no attempt to get the proportions of a B17-G correct. It might be a B17-F, hard to tell what the artist was thinking. Where are the top turret and tail guns?
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
It’s an artist’s rendition of an early model B-17. It wasn’t until the E model that the larger tail unit incorporating the rear guns was fitted, which we now commonly associate with B 17. The main spotting feature of the G model was the addition of the chin turret.
Yes, it is absolutely an artist's rendition. The tail profile is wrong for all B17s, so is the canopy, and so is the missing top turret.
The early rear gunners position should still have side windows, even before the Cheyenne Tail Turret was fitted.
I have a collection of badly drawn WW2 equipment from during WW2. This drawing is actually one of the better ones.
At least we can agree it is a B17. Many drawings are not even that good.
Any idea what kind of a tank this is supposed to be? it looks like a Sherman and a Crusader got together and made a horrible half-breed.
SeeYou190Any idea what kind of a tank this is supposed to be?
M5 “Stuart/Honey” tanks
OK, I think it is supposed to be a Honey, but the artist sure made it look lower, wider, and more menacing.
Good call.
deleted
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
SeeYou190 I like the way there was no attempt to get the proportions of a B17-G correct. It might be a B17-F, hard to tell what the artist was thinking. Where are the top turret and tail guns? WARNING WARNING!!! Rivet Counter Alert!!!! It’s an artist’s rendition of an early model B-17. It wasn’t until the E model that the larger tail unit incorporating the rear guns was fitted, which we now commonly associate with B 17. The main spotting feature of the G model was the addition of the chin turret. Cheers, the Bear.
SeeYou190 I like the way there was no attempt to get the proportions of a B17-G correct. It might be a B17-F, hard to tell what the artist was thinking. Where are the top turret and tail guns?
Looks to me like Model 299 B17 prototype
SeeYou190 M5 “Stuart/Honey” tanks OK, I think it is supposed to be a Honey, but the artist sure made it look lower, wider, and more menacing. Good call. -Kevin
Not a "Honey" which was British name for M3 light tanks in North Africa. Resembles M5A1 with sand shields. M5A1 was produced Dec 1943 - Jun 1944
------------------
Both it and the B17 in the candybar ad are pretty good representations of the real thing.
On the production front, we should also consider the demand for merchant ships, and the steel involved in building of shipyards. In the US, by 1943, American shipyards turned out three merchant ship a day—nearly 3,300 over the course of the war. In fact, the US was producing more cargo ships than military ships. The Victory and Liberty ships were mass-produced and were made of steel (https://americanhistory.si.edu/onthewater/exhibition/6_2.html).