Condition of Airfield Buildings

The person who compiled this is partly correct. However I do not agree with most of it. Generally speaking the basic building materials were not inferior to that used in civil engineering, apart from maybe prefabrication most of which came about because raw materials were becoming harder to source (like Canadian Cedar wood or other quality timber sourced in the Baltic states) so we had to make do with home grown timber (for example) which is inferior to the real stuff. Archaeology yes was neglected during WWII but not during the expansion period where archaeology was carried out as when artifacts were found, there are plenty of reports published on this. With regards to wooden barracks, well I can assure you that expansion period timber huts, if they were regularly maintained would have lasted way beyond 2011 (Canadian Cedar). Indeed I have seen WWI huts which are nearly 100 years old in good condition!

Concrete has suffered not because, the mix was wrong or the design was wrong, but because the original specifications were not adhered to by the contractors and this problem is not just to do with the austerity conditions of WWII, but a factor even with modern contractors. The problem with concrete, is the thickness of the outer layer over the reinforcing bars - this is often too thin, enabling damp to get at the bars and the bars rusting, thus expanding and spalling the concrete. If the proper specs were maintained by the contractor in the first place then these structures would be good today.

I do not agree with the statement that CW structures are better quality, this is a generalisation based no hard facts.

Go ahead, use anything of mine.