Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Air Ministry - Adastral House

After the formation of the Air Ministry in 1918, its headquarters was on Kingsway; one of two identical buildings opposite Bush House became Adastral House, the name being derived from the RAF motto. This remained the home of the Air Ministry through WW2, and the roof of the building in 1940 during The Blitz is where, while fire-watching, Arthur Harris, made the remark about the bombing to a companion, "Well, they are sowing the wind...".

Air Ministry and British aerospace industry ..
War Ministries WW2 ..

Secretaries of State for Air, 1919–1946
Winston Churchill - 10 January 1919 to 1 April 1921
Frederick Edward Guest - 1 April 1921 to 19 October 1922 
Sir Samuel Hoare 31 October 1922 22 to January 1924
Christopher Thomson1st Baron Thomson 22 January 1924 to 3 November 1924 
Sir Samuel Hoare 6 November 1924 to 4 June 1929
Christopher Thomson1st Baron Thomson 1929 5 October to 1930 (R101 disaster)
William Mackenzie, 1st Baron Amulree 14 October 1930 to 5 November 1931 
Charles Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry 5 November 1931 to 7 June 1935
Philip Cunliffe-Lister, 1st Viscount Swinton 7 June 1935 to 16 May 1938
Sir Kingsley Wood 6 May 1938 to 3 April 1940
Sir Samuel Hoare, 3 April 1940 to 11 May 1940
Sir Archibald Sinclair 11 May 1940 to 23 May 1945 
Harold Macmillan 25 May 1945 to 26 July 1945
William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount Stansgate 3 August 1945 to 4 October
1946

Monday, July 27, 2020

British re-armament - 1934 to 1939

.
1934-1939 How Britain Prepared For WW2: Price Of Empire | War Stories  >
1938 Britain Manufactures Armaments (1938) - British Pathé > .
1931-1951 Britain's Preparation for War - RogersHx > .>> WW2 >>>History of the Second World War - Hx WW2 Podcast >> .

In British history re-armament covers the period between 1934 and 1939, when a substantial programme of re-arming the nation was undertaken.

After WW1, dubbed "the war to end all wars", Britain (along with many other nations) had wound down its military capability. The Ten Year Rule said that a "great war" was not expected in the next ten years; this policy was abandoned in 1932.

Germany was not considered a threat during the 1920s, but the situation changed radically when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 and withdrew Germany from the League of Nations and the Geneva Disarmament conference.

In October 1933, when the failure of the Disarmament Conference was evident, a Defence Requirements Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence was appointed to examine the worst deficiencies of the armed forces. The group first considered the Far East, but soon looked at dangers nearer home.

Even in the mid-1930s the Royal Air Force's front-line fighters were biplanes, little different from those employed in World War I. The Re-Armament Programme enabled the RAF to acquire modern monoplanes, like the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire, such that sufficient numbers were available to defend the UK in the Battle of Britain in 1940, during the early stages of World War II.

Re-armament also led to the Royal Navy acquiring five new battleships of the King George V class, and modernising existing battleships to varying extents. Whereas ships such as HMS Renown and HMS Warspite were completely modernised, others such as HMS Hood, the Nelson class, the Royal Sovereign class, HMS Barham, and HMS Repulse were largely unmodernised - lacking improvements to horizontal armour, large command towers and new machinery.

Equally importantly, aircraft carriers of the Illustrious class and a series of large cruiser classes were ordered and expedited.

The British Army was supplied with modern tanks and weapons e.g. howitzers, and the Royal Ordnance Factories were equipped to produce munitions on a large scale.

Government-backed "Shadow Factories", generally privately owned but subsidised by the government, were established to increase the capacity of private industry; some were also built by the government. Similarly Agency Factories supplemented the Royal Ordnance Factories.

Budgets (Military)

2021 Why Does the US Spend So Much On Defense? - CoCa > .
24-11-10 Ranking USA's Most Important Military Bases - Aaron Watson > .
24-9-8 Ruscian War Economy 2024: sanctions, inflation, mounting risks - Perun > .
24-8-13 Economics of War - CNBC I > .
24-5-14 USA+NATO: MIC & Strategic Power vs XIR - OBF > . 
24-4-14 US Arms Production - Strategy to Restore Arsenal of Democracy? - Perun > .
24-1-20 Can Ruscia win the military production race? - Anders > .
23-12-5 Most Dangerous [XIR] Moment: America’s Role in the Pacific | Hoover > . 
23-10-28 Poland's military dream: A tank too far? - Geo Perspective > .
23-10-6 Poland orders US HIMARS & SK Chunmoo systems - Binkov > .
23-9-18 South Korean Factories Churning Out Armaments for NATO | WSJ > .
23-9-10 Industrial Competition & Consolidation, Military Procurement - Perun > .
23-9-5 Strategic Autonomy: Will Europe Ever Be Able to Defend Itself? | Waro > .
23-8-31 Poland: powerhouse in the making - Caspian > .
23-8-20 NATO's Rearmament & Spending - NATO's R-U Response - Perun > .
23-8-13 Game Theory Of Military Spending | EcEx > .
23-7-31 Ruscia Cannibalizing Its Economy - Still Not Enough - gtbt > . skip > .
23-7-28 Why America Needs a Space Force - McBeth > .
23-7-25 Can Germany Really Become Europe's Great Military Power? - Waro > .
23-7-18 Futureproofing for changing threats; Defence Command Paper - Forces > .
23-7-9 How Wars End - Negotiations, Coercion, War Termination Theory - Perun > .
23-6-18 Procurement vs Efficacy - Requirements, R&D pitfalls - Perun > .
23-3-19 Britain's Shrinking Military - Cold War to Cash-Strapped Shadow - mfp > .
23-2-20 Military spending: UK may offer some insights - CNBC > .
23-1-26 Germany's military in dire state. Fix? | DW > .
23-1-22 Politics Can Destroy Armies: Factionalism & R-U War - Perun > .
23-1-13 No more doubts for the West | Ukraine weaponized (subs) - Katz > .
23-1-8 War Economies - Russia and Ukraine won't collapse tomorrow - Perun > .
22-11-27 Polish military modernisation & buying Korean kit - Perun > .
22-10-5 US Military’s Massive Global Transportation System - Wendover > .
22-9-4 6 Months of Ukraine War - Economics, Endurance, Energy War - Perun > .
22-8-6 How Many BCTs can the US Army Form for a Large Scale War? - CoCa > .
22-7-22 Poland could become strongest land force in the EU - Binkov > .
22-7-21 How the economy of Russia is dying (English subtitles) - Максим Кац > .
22-12-29 German Rearmament: Is it going wrong? - mah > .
22-6-29 2022 adjusted MoD's Military Budget - UK > .
22-6-23 Germany's $100 Billion Military Upgrade - CaspianReport > .
22-6-19 Economics of war - Russia vs Ukraine - sanctions, shelling - Perun > .
22-5-11 Lend Lease 2.0 - Ukraine's 'Arsenal of Democracy?' - Perun > .
22-4-14 Lithuanian Army Ready For War? Task & Purpose > .
22-3-31 Germany: Where did the 100 billion go? - mah > .
22-3-30 How will Germany spend its massive €100 billion military budget? | DW > .
22-3-24 Ukraine's War Economy - Into Europe > .
22-3-14 How the Ukraine invasion drives military spending worldwide | DW > .
2022 Defense Budgets by Country 2022 - Military Spending - Mega 3D > .
21-12-25 Economics of War - Learn Economics > .
2022 Fort Bragg: Largest Military Base in the World - Megaprojects > . skip ad > .
24-4-14 US Arms Production - Strategy to Restore Arsenal of Democracy? - Perun > .
exercitus pecūnia - pro libertate >> .


Geostrategic Projection

On 22-3-1 Germany announced €100 billion for the Armed Forces and an increase to +2% GDP on military spending one month ago.

00:00 - Intro (22-3-31)
00:45 - Topics of this video
01:33 - German F-35
05:37 - Defense planning announcement
07:09 - Germany's shopping list
11:36 - €100bn: Setup
13:49 - €100bn: Analysis
20:01 - Outro


The DoD is prioritizing China as the top pacing priority, as it remains the only U.S. competitor able to combine its economic, diplomatic, military, and technologic power to mount a sustained challenge to the international system. The rapid development and operational focus of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) constitutes a significant and long-term security threat to the United States and to our allies and partners. This threat is a consequence of nearly two decades of intense effort by China to modernize and reform the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and other forces into an increasingly capable joint force able to conduct the full range of military operations across every warfighting domain.

In addition to a significant buildup and modernization of its strategic forces, the PLA is advancing its capabilities and concepts for conducting information, cyber, space, and counterspace operations. China is also mobilizing vast resources to become a global leader in emerging technologies and is leveraging those advances in support of its military modernization.

China has made clear that it expects the PLA to be a global military actor capable of securing China’s growing overseas interests and advancing other PRC objectives abroad. These changes are accompanied by aggressive and at times coercive activities that seek to expand the PRC’s military influence by forging closer ties with foreign militaries, developing overseas military bases, and expanding the PLA’s presence worldwide.

China’s robust military modernization activities have, in recent decades, sought to erode the ability of U.S. forces to project power in the region, and China has continued to accelerate the development of capabilities specifically designed to counter key U.S. strategic and operational advantages. The continued erosion of U.S. military advantages relative to China remains the most significant risk to U.S. security interests. If left unimpeded, this continued erosion could fundamentally challenge our ability to achieve U.S. defense objectives and to defend the sovereignty of our allies, the consequence of which would be to limit DoD’s ability to underpin other U.S. instruments of power.


Why military aid to Ukraine has a positive effect on Western economies: In the short term, the increase in military spending due to the war in Ukraine has a stimulating effect on the GDP of the Western allies’ countries. This was reported by Ukrainian media, quoting the National Bank of Ukraine’s Inflation Report (July 2023). Various factors have been mentioned in the report.

According to the report, one US dollar spent by donor governments on military needs generates $0.79-0.87 of GDP in these countries within one to two years, and the overall positive effect does not disappear even after five years. 

There are several additional positive effects for nations providing military aid to Ukraine, such as the possibility of sharing military experience, more efficient allocation of defence resources, a boost for arms exporters, and increased productivity due to additional investment in research and development.


Sunday, July 26, 2020

CCS - Combined Chiefs of Staff

Friendship Between Britain & USA | Warlords: Churchill vs Roosevelt - Time > .

Following the German declaration of war on America on the 11th of December 1941, Britain gained an invaluable ally. Securing a joint military command between the new partnership was central to its success.

42-1-1 Arcadia Conference & Declaration of the United Nations ..

The Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) was the supreme military staff for the United States and Britain during World War II. It set all the major policy decisions for the two nations, subject to the approvals of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The CCS emerged from the meetings of the Arcadia Conference in Washington, from December 22, 1941 to January 14, 1942. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, Prime Minister Churchill and his senior military staff used Arcadia as an opportunity to lay out the general strategy for the war. The American Army Chief of Staff George Marshall came up with the idea of a combined board, and sold it to Roosevelt and together the two sold the idea to Churchill. Churchill's military aides were much less favorable, and General Alan Brooke, the chief of the British Army, was strongly opposed. However, Brooke was left behind in London to handle the daily details of running the British war effort, and was not consulted. As part of Marshall's plan, Roosevelt also set up a Joint Chiefs of Staff on the American side. The combined board was permanently stationed in Washington, where Field Marshal John Dill represented the British half.

The responsibilities of the Combined Chiefs of Staff were set out as follows: Under the direction of the heads of the United Nations, the Combined Chiefs of Staff will collaborate in the formulation and execution of policies and plans concerning:
(a) the strategic conduct of the war;
(b) the broad programme of war requirements based on approved strategic policy;
(c) the direction of munition resources based on strategic needs and the availability of means of transportation; and
(d) the requirements for overseas transportation for the fighting services of the United Nations, based on approved strategic priority.

In the report of the Arcadia Conference, it is noted, to avoid confusion, that the word 'Combined' applied to the Combined Staffs of, or combined action by two or more of the united nations, whilst the word 'Joint' signified inter- service planning by one of the 'united nations.'

The CCS was constituted from the British Chiefs of Staff Committee and the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, The American unit was created in part to present a common front to the British Chiefs of Staff. It held its first formal meeting on 9 February 1942 to coordinate U.S. military operations between War and Navy Departments.

The CCS charter was approved by President Roosevelt 21 April 1942. The American members of the CCS were General George C. Marshall, the United States Army chief of staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold R. Stark (replaced early in 1942 by Admiral Ernest J. King); and the Chief (later Commanding General) of the Army Air Forces, Lt. Gen. Henry H. Arnold. In July 1942 a fourth member was added, the President's personal Chief of Staff, Admiral William D. Leahy.

On the British side the Chiefs of Staff only normally attended during the heads of states' conferences. Instead the British Joint Staff Mission was permanently situated in Washington, D.C. to represent British interests. The British members were a representative of the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Defence, and the Chiefs of Staff Committee, which consisted of the First Sea Lord, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and the Chief of the Air Staff, or the Washington representative of each. The representative of the Prime Minister was Field Marshal Sir John Dill and after his death Field Marshal Sir Henry Maitland Wilson. The Washington representatives of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, who normally met with the United States members in place of their principals, were the senior officers from their respective services on the British Joint Staff Mission in Washington. In the course of the war, the First Sea Lord was represented by Admiral Sir Charles Little, Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, Admiral Sir Percy Noble, and Admiral Sir James Somerville; the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was represented by Lt. Gen. Sir Colville Wemyss and Lt. Gen. G. N. Macready; and the Chief of the Air Staff was represented by Air Marshal D. C. S. Evill, Air Marshal Sir William L. Welsh, and Air Marshal Douglas Colyer. Dill, a close friend of Marshall, often took the American position and prevented a polarizations that would undermine effectiveness.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff organization included the Combined Secretariat and a supporting organisation of combined committees and sub-committees to deal with specific subjects. Of these, the Combined Planning Staff were the body of officers appointed by the Combined Chiefs of Staff to make studies, draft plans, and perform such other work as placed on the Combined Chiefs of Staff agenda and delegated to them by the Combined Planning Staff. Officers attached to the British Joint Staff Mission provided the British element in the secretariat for these combined committees. Their authority did not extend to operations controlled directly by the Admiralty and the US Navy Department.


In the Northern hemisphere spring of 1942, Britain and the United States agreed on a worldwide division of strategic responsibility. On 24 March 1942, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff were designated as primarily responsible for the war in the Pacific, and the British Chiefs for the Middle East-Indian Ocean region, while the European-Mediterranean-Atlantic area would be a combined responsibility of both staffs. China was designated a separate theater commanded by its chief of state, Chiang Kai-shek, though within the United States' sphere of responsibility. Six days later the Joint Chiefs of Staff divided the Pacific theater into three areas: the Pacific Ocean Areas (POA), the South West Pacific Area (SWPA), and the Southeast Pacific Area. The Pacific Ocean Area command formally became operational on 8 May.

The CCS usually held its meetings in Washington. The full CCS usually met only during the great wartime conferences on grand strategy, such as at Casablanca (see List of WW2 conferences). The British Chiefs of Staff took their place on the Combined Chiefs of Staff Committee at the international conferences (at which Roosevelt and Churchill settled the main lines of allied strategy). For the conferences at Tehran (December 1943), Yalta (February 1945) and Potsdam (July-August 1945), the British and Americans were joined by the Russian Chiefs of Staff. The meetings of heads of government at those conferences were designed to reach formal agreement on issues thoroughly staffed by the CCS. At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, General Frank Maxwell Andrews was appointed commander of all United States forces in the European Theater of Operations.

Although it was responsible to both the British and American governments, the CCS controlled forces from many different countries in all theaters, including the Pacific, India and North Africa. The existence of the Combined Chiefs of Staff enabled forces to be effectively placed under a commander of a different nationality without breaking the chain of responsibility to their home government, as commanders were responsible to the Combined Chiefs who respectively continued to remain responsible to their own governments. This responsibility was both advisory (in terms of the settlement between governments of the overall strategy) and executive (in terms of formulating and issuing directives to implement that strategy). Representatives of allied nations were not members of the CCS but accepted procedure included consultation with "Military Representatives of Associated Powers" on strategic issues. Much cooperation continued between the British and American militaries after the war including the Combined Chiefs of Staff structure, and it was used again during the Berlin Blockade of 1948 even as negotiations began that resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Chamberlain War Ministry

Appeasement has failed, Chamberlain faces reality > .     
Britain Stops Trying to Appease Hitler; Turns to Churchill > .
Churchill - tb >> .

"The fateful hour has struck, Britain and Germany are at war. Members gather at the House to hear the Premier's speech.
Crowd see Count Raczynski arrive at Downing Street for talks. Mr Greenwood, Sir John Simon, Hore-Belisha arrive. Dr Kordt goes into the embassy at 21, Bryanston Square. Big Ben stands at 11am when Sir John Anderson and his wife [sic - see comments] arrived followed by Sir John Simon, Kingsley Wood and Sir Samuel Hoare. Eden arrives by car. Crowds cheer the Prime Minister. Houses of Parliament. Posters announce War as the ministers leave the house carrying gas masks, they are Sir John Anderson and Sir Kingsley Wood. Mr Chamberlain arrives back at Downing Street. Winston Churchill and Clementine Churchill also seen." 
.....

On 3 September 1939, Neville Chamberlain announced his War Cabinet.
Dominated largely by Conservative ministers who served under Chamberlain's National Government between 1937 and 1939, the additions of Lord Hankey (a former Cabinet Secretary from the First World War) and Winston Churchill (strong anti-appeaser) seemed to give the Cabinet more balance. Unlike Lloyd George's War Cabinet, the members of this one were also heads of Government Departments.

In January 1940, after disagreements with the Chiefs of Staff, Hore-Belisha resigned from the National Government, refusing a move to the post of President of the Board of Trade. He was succeeded by Oliver Stanley.

It was originally the practice for the Chiefs of Staff to attend all military discussions of the Chamberlain War Cabinet. Churchill became uneasy with this, as he felt that when they attended they did not confine their comments to purely military issues. To overcome this, a Military Co-ordination Committee was set up, consisting of the three Service ministers normally chaired by Lord Chatfield. This together with the Service chiefs would co-ordinate the strategic ideas of 'top hats' and 'brass' and agree strategic proposals to put forward to the War Cabinet. Unfortunately, except when chaired by the Prime Minister, the Military Co-ordinating Committee lacked sufficient authority to override a Minister "fighting his corner". When Churchill took over from Chatfield, whilst continuing to represent the Admiralty, this introduced additional problems, and did little to improve the pre-existing ones. Chamberlain announced a further change in arrangements in the Norway debate, but this (and the Military Co-ordination Committee) was overtaken by events, the Churchill War Cabinet being run on rather different principles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_cabinet#Chamberlain_war_ministry .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_war_ministry .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Government_(1937%E2%80%931939) .

sī vīs pācem, parā bellum

igitur quī dēsīderat pācem praeparet bellum    therefore, he who desires peace, let him prepare for war sī vīs pācem, parā bellum if you wan...