Thomas1195
Banned
The gap in industrial and technological capacity between Germany and Britain would widen between 1914 and 1917. In other words, Germany would massively outproduce Britain in munition race.
The gap in industrial and technological capacity between Germany and Britain would widen between 1914 and 1917. In other words, Germany would massively outproduce Britain in munition race.
The gap in industrial and technological capacity between Germany and Britain would widen between 1914 and 1917. In other words, Germany would massively outproduce Britain in munition race.
No, they never surpassed Germany in shells, artillery, machine guns and rifles, the core weapons for a continental war.Britain easily outproduced Germany across the rest of the War
No, they never surpassed Germany in shells, artillery, machine guns and rifles, the core weapons for a continental war.
Well, what I mentioned were machine guns, artillery, rifles and shells, where Germany were superior thanks to their advantage in metallurgy.Except as so often you are simply wrong.
![]()
Well, what I mentioned were machine guns, artillery, rifles and shells, where Germany were superior thanks to their advantage in metallurgy.
Well, what I mentioned were machine guns, artillery, rifles and shells, where Germany were superior thanks to their advantage in metallurgy.
https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...ge&q=world war 1 artillery production&f=falseSource?
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=LAyqUn0L1TQC&pg=PA123&dq=world+war+1+artillery+production&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjciJGEurDTAhWMmZQKHcQnDS8Q6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=world war 1 artillery production&f=false
Here you are. Germany outproduced Britain even in 1918 regarding the categories I mentioned.
Also, the Fritz-Haber process would be applied in mass production. Well, Germany no longer have to care about British blockade of Chilean nitrate.
This would also boost German output, thus Germany would also outproduce Britain in explosives.
Click on the lil' book on the left side bar and then scroll down what's accessable.Sorry, that link doesn't work for me. Is there a title to the book? Hopefully I can look it up myself.
Also, the Fritz-Haber process would be applied in mass production. Well, Germany no longer have to care about British blockade of Chilean nitrate.
This would also boost German output, thus Germany would also outproduce Britain in explosives.
Germany already had a pilot plant operating in 1913. The extra 3 years would give Germany more time to set up more plants (or at least start building them), which in turn means that much less build-up is required when the war really starts. Sure, Germany probably wouldn't have as much nitrate production as OTL 1917, but they would definitely have more nitrate production than they would have in 1914 when the OTL war started.So to clarify, without the first world war the British would have no chance of finding a light switch, but the Germans would exceed their OTL nitrates production, despite industrial production being only theoretical in 1914? It should be noted the German wartime production of nitrates has been compared to the Manhattan Project in terms of scientific endeavor and resources applied.
In peacetime Germany is likely to take 2-3 years to even get a prototype scale production plant funded and operational to prove the technology. With no OTL WW1, you are probably looking at significant nitrate production coming online after 1920. This line of discussion is not relevant to this thread because Britain is unlikely to be a belligerent in a deferred WW1 scenario and the British economy is not a huge consumer of nitrates. However, nitrate production would become a more significant contributor to the German economy than your often cited 'new technologies' for the for-seeable future.
Germany already had a pilot plant operating in 1913. The extra 3 years would give Germany more time to set up more plants (or at least start building them), which in turn means that much less build-up is required when the war really starts. Sure, Germany probably wouldn't have as much nitrate production as OTL 1917, but they would definitely have more nitrate production than they would have in 1914 when the OTL war started.
You failed to mention the role of German state. Germany was not Britain. German state would subsidize these factories as part of infant industry policy.The pilot plants likley used a different methodology and were not designed for the production of nitrates at an industrial scale, at least not on the scale required during wartime. Alwin Mittasch did not identify the optimal catalyst until immediately prior to the war in June 1914. During discussions between Bosche and German military circa October 1914, there still did not appear to be any certainty that industrial scale production of nitrates could even be accomplished on a timely basis. At that point, no expense was spared to push for the industrial production of nitrates.
In peacetime, commercial realities where experimental failure costs money, the development of this experimental technology is likley to be much more methodical (i.e. slower). There is also a possibility that proven but suboptimal solutions (like the pilot plant you mentioned) might initially look superior to potential investors.
Each converter at the pilot plant could produce 3 tons of ammonia per day. It may not have had the best catalyst, but it definitely was designed for the production of nitrates at an industrial scale. It was only the construction of enough plants "on a timely basis" that was the problem for the German Army- not the technical difficulties that had by then been solved (even with a slightly sub-optimal catalyst). While 3 tons/day times however many converters is a far cry from the estimated 4,000 tons/day that the German Army alone required, it reduces the problem to one of building enough converters fast enough- a material, labor, and time problem, not a technical one. Give them 3 more years and they might not have built enough converters to make them self-sufficient, but they would be close enough to finish it with much less stress than OTL.The pilot plants likley used a different methodology and were not designed for the production of nitrates at an industrial scale, at least not on the scale required during wartime. Alwin Mittasch did not identify the optimal catalyst until immediately prior to the war in June 1914. During discussions between Bosche and German military circa October 1914, there still did not appear to be any certainty that industrial scale production of nitrates could even be accomplished on a timely basis. At that point, no expense was spared to push for the industrial production of nitrates.
In peacetime, commercial realities where experimental failure costs money, the development of this experimental technology is likley to be much more methodical (i.e. slower). There is also a possibility that proven but suboptimal solutions (like the pilot plant you mentioned) might initially look superior to potential investors.