Never ceases to amaze me at how innovative the UKs military and advanced industry has consistently been but how badly they reading have been let down of even deliberately hamstrung by politicians and sinfully short sighted financial and service industries.
Don't forget to add in a good dose of impractical engineers or atrocious industry managers...
That too but unfortunately far too many of them were better connected than there competent contemporaries. Them and those so arrogant they were knowingly ignorant and would not back down or modify their stance no matter the cost, i.e. Sir Alexander Arnold Constantine Issigonis. Many of you may be familiar with the story of the mini, they sold it for less than it cost to build and it was release with a multitude of easily fixed problems, not because it wasn't realised or couldn't be fixed but because of the driving force of Issigonis' personality, even upon exiting a pilot vehicle with his legs soaked half way up his calves and his shoes squelching , he responded that he didn't see a problem with the cars water tightness and there was no need for change.
Then there was Lord Nuffield, completely stuffed up prewar Spitfire production at Castle Bromwich, who instead of delivering the 50 aircraft a month promised, by may 1940 not a single one had been delivered. His involvement (responsibility) for the cruiser tank debacle should have seen him gaoled, there is not only the time and effort wasted building Cavaleirs and Centaurs instead of Cromwells but his deliberate actions to ensure the resulting vehicle turned out the way he wanted not what the Army had been asking for, better armour protection first, then better gun, preferably 3" or better (75mm HV), and more reliable, even at the expense of speed. On reliability, did you guys know Nuffield delivered Crusaders without lubrication, the tanks were apparently driven onto rail cars, transporters, holding yards and docks without any engine oil! Any wonder why they suffered from mechanical reliability by the time they got to the troops!
Then there was Napier, so fixated on increasing power of the Sabre but did almost nothing to improve reliability or to sort out manufacturing issues. Yep very well away of some (but nowhere new all) of the issues UK industry had (still have looking at some of BAEs antics), hard, very hard to believe they were among the worlds best at so many things at the start of the 20th century. One theory I am inclined to favour is, following WWI and the economic troubles thereafter, many of the UKs best, most competent, capable and ethical companies struggled in competition with other better connected (less ethical) and though otherwise, less impressive competitors. Yes men and establishment men did well, others not so, not saying its fact, nor am I suggesting it is so simple or always the case, its just the impression I get quite often reading about many British companies, projects and politically linked decisions.
