How would a World War I which breaks out in 1917 look like?

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.
 

BooNZ

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.

Almost certainly, because it is doubtful Britain would even be drawn into a continental war in 1917...
 

Deleted member 94680

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.

Based on projections or personal opinion?

Bearing in mind OTL where after a slow start (The Shell Crisis, etc) Britain easily outproduced Germany across the rest of the War. Once the War starts and Britain is fully committed, how will they not reproduce the performance of OTL?
 
No, they never surpassed Germany in shells, artillery, machine guns and rifles, the core weapons for a continental war.

Except as so often you are simply wrong.

_58531439_explosive_prod_ww1_304gr.gif
 
Well, what I mentioned were machine guns, artillery, rifles and shells, where Germany were superior thanks to their advantage in metallurgy.

Artillery is simply a method of delivering high explosive to a given target, so the useful measure of shell production is explosive production. I can't find the stats for the numbers of shells produced and it is possible that Germany produced more, smaller shells than Britain but that in turn would suggest they had a shortage of Heavy Artillery, which is supported by the fact that Germany produced 3409 15cm sFH howitzers while Britain produced 3633 6-inch howitzers, despite starting production in 1916, 3 years after the German gun went into production. When it comes to artillery Britain alone was outproducing Germany by 1917 in both the guns and the explosive they were delivering. Now with a later war and more Haber process factories set up in Germany pre-war Britain will have more to catch up but Britain fundamentally had a GDP per capita 30-40% higher than Germany in 1913 and was more industrialised to boot. In a long war that will come into play.
 
I just remembered that the Ottomans would have also completed the Baghdad railway, strengthening their position if they had to enter the war.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
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.
 

Deleted member 94680


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.

Pure guesswork and blue sky thinking. Love the optimism though.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Sorry, that link doesn't work for me. Is there a title to the book? Hopefully I can look it up myself.
Click on the lil' book on the left side bar and then scroll down what's accessable.

Quite far down, books page 123, are i.e. the artillery production numbers.

Books title :
Race to the front
The material Foundations of Coalition Strategy in the Great War
by Kevin D. Stubbs
 

Anderman

Donor
It should be noticed that the two links/diagram are showing different units of measurement. The first tons the second shows pieces.
Just saying.
 
Not sure why people are discussing Anglo vs German munitions output, with this scenario the Germans are probably looking at favourable British neutrality.
 

BooNZ

Banned
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.

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.
 
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.
 

BooNZ

Banned
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.

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.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
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.
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.

As for funding, Germany is currently paying to store 500,000 tons of nitrates in various stockpiles throughout the country. Once a system is demonstrated to replace that (which it was by October 1914), they'll drop the old stockpile system like a hot rock, even if it means spending almost as much initially to set up ammonia plants.
 
Top